Oak  ST.  HDSF 


THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


806.51 

£>\7s 


i 


•  < 


ii  «!’* 


k 


I 


f 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/specimensofargum00bake_0 


IReaDings  for  StuOento 

.  .  . .  --  --  —  - 


SPECIMENS 

OF 

ARGUMENTATION 

MODERN 


COMPILED  BY 


GEORGE  P.  BAKER 


Instructor  in  English  in  Harvard  University  and 
Non-resident  Lecturer  at  Wellesley  College 


NEW  YORK 

HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 

’t 

1893 


C01>YRIGHT,  1893, 

BY 

HENRY  HOLT  &  CO. 


THE  MERSHON  COMPANY  PRESS, 
RAHWAYj  N,  J. 


PREFACE. 


This  little  book  has  been  compiled  to  meet  two 
needs  that  have  arisen  in  the  editor’s  experience  with 
classes  in  Argumentative  Composition  at  Harvard 
University  and  Wellesley  College.  The  first  need  is  for 
a  small,  inexpensive  collection  of  specimens  of  argu¬ 
mentation,  edited  especially  for  classes  in  Argumenta¬ 
tive  Composition.  Constantly  students  have  asked  : 

Where  can  we  find  the  speeches  from  which  the  illus¬ 
trations  in  the  lectures  are  drawn,  and  other  arguments 
that  illustrate  the  suggestions  and  the  rules  that  have 
been  given  us  ?  ”  The  difficulty  in  referring  such  stu¬ 
dents  to  the  existing  collections  of  speeches  and  argu¬ 
ments  has  been  of  several  kinds.  To  become  really 
familiar  with  the  necessary  illustrations,  with  the 
speeches  chosen,  a  student  must  own  the  book  contain¬ 
ing  them,  but  the  large  collections  are  too  expensive 
for  most  students.  The  smaller  and  cheaper  books  al¬ 
most  surely  lack  one  of  the  speeches  most  desired  by  the 
instructor.  To  ask  a  student  to  read  one  illustration 
here,  another  there,  is  to  put  the  speeches  as  a  set  be¬ 
yond  his  purse,  or  if  he  is  to  look  up  all  in  some  library, 
to  make  too  great  a  demand  on  his  time.  Moreover, 

nearly  all  of  the  collections  contain  many  specimens 

•  •  • 

111 


iv 


PREFA  CE. 


of  oratory  famous,  not  for  their  power  as  arguments 
but  for  mere  brilliancy  of  style  or  for  the  conditions 
under  which  they  are  given.  Students  browsing 
in  such  books  unguided — as  is  the  case  in  nearly  all 
the  collections — by  any  notes  to  point  out  what  is  the 
really  great  argumentative  work  and  why  it  is  great, 
are  pretty  sure  to  be  attracted  by  what  is  clever  and 
entertaining  merely,  rather  than  by  what  is  structurally 
perfect  and  convincing  in  argument.  It  has  seemed 
worth  while,  then,  to  select  a  half-dozen  arguments  in 
which  students  could  find  corroboration  of  the  lectur¬ 
ers’  words  and  further  illustrations  of  them,  and  to 
edit  these  carefully  with  notes  to  show  the  condition 
under  which  the  arguments  were  uttered  ;  wherein 
their  power  lies  ;  and  whence  it  comes. 

The  editor  has  tried,  also,  in  his  selecting,  to  find 
material  that  should  show  to  the  beginner  in  Argu¬ 
mentative  Composition  what,  often,  he  does  not  seem 
to  understand,  that  argumentation  is  not  a  thing  apart, 
confined  to  law  courts,  but  has  its  important  place  in 
literary  and  scientific  work.  For  this  purpose.  Lord 
Mansfield  on  the  Evans  case,  the  ‘‘Junius”  letter, 
and  Professor  Huxley’s  lecture,  are  printed  side 
by  side. 

The  second  need  arose  from  a  special  feature  of 
the  work  in  Argumentative  Composition  at  Harvard 
College  that  may  require  a  word  of  explanation.  All 
the  prescribed  argumentative  writing  at  the  college 
has  greatly  improved  since  a  system  of  briefs  prelimin¬ 
ary  to  the  written  arguments  was  arranged.  By  this 
system  a  student  makes  an  outline  for  his  argumenta¬ 
tive  essay,  consisting  of  introductory  headings  and  of 


PREFA  CE. 


V 


the  headings  of  the  brief  proper.  The  former  sum¬ 
marize,  as  briefly  as  possible,  the  facts  that  must  be 
made  clear  before  the  argument  itself  can  begin  ;  the 
latter  are  all  phrased  as  reasons  for  the  conclusion  to 
be  reached,  and  are  carefully  correlated  by  numbers 
and  letters,  so  that  the  relations  of  the  different  parts, 
the  structure  as  a  whole,  and  the  meaning  at  every 
point,  shall  be  clear  to  a  reader.  These  briefs,  cor¬ 
rected  by  the  instructors  for  structural  or  other  faults, 
are  returned  to  the  students,  who  revise  them  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  written  suggestions  of  the  instruc¬ 
tors,  and  make  the  revised  briefs  the  bases  of  their 
“  Forensics,'*  so-called. 

A  class,  before  drawing  briefs  from  its  own  material, 
is  asked  to  make  a  brief  of  some  masterpiece  of  argu¬ 
mentation,  that  it  may  learn  what  a  brief  is,  and  may 
recognize  the  careful  structure  that  underlies  all  great 
argumentation.  To  provide  material  for  this  first 
brief  of  all  has  been  a  problem.  As  Mr.  Johnston* 
has  noted,  modern  public  speaking  is  losing  the  care¬ 
ful  structure  that  belonged  to  the  orations  of  the  past 
— just  what  the  student  of  brief  work  needs  to  study. 
Therefore,  much  that  the  collections  of  speeches  con¬ 
tain  is  unavailable  for  briefs.  Nor  must  the  selection 
be  long,  for  in  analyzing  a  long  argument  a  student 
will  get  hopelessly  involved.  Finally,  a  student  cannot 
be  asked  to  buy  a  book  to  get  the  material  for  but  one 
exercise  of  the  year.  The  editor  hopes  that  this  com¬ 
pilation  will  meet  these  difficulties  that  have  faced 
him  each  year  when  a  class  was  studying  the  drawing 
of  briefs.  Three  of  the  selections.  Lord  Mansfield’s 
speech,  the  ‘‘Junius”  letter,  and  Professor  Huxley’s 

^  American  Orations. 


VI 


PREFACE. 


lecture,  are  so  marked  in  structure  that  to  draw  a 
brief  from  any  one  of  them  should  not  be  too  difficult 
a  task  for  a  beginner  in  Argumentative  Composition. 
So  brilliant,  too,  are  all  of  them  as  arguments  that  the 
analysis  necessary  for  the  brief  will  in  its  results  more 
than  repay  the  student.  That  the  beginner  may  see 
what  a  brief  is  and  the  way  in  which  it  may  be  drawn 
from  an  argument,  the  brief  of  Lord  Chatham’s 
speech  and  the  original  have  been  printed. 

Because  some  of  the  speeches  were  to  be  used  for 
briefs,  it  has  several  times  been  difficult,  in  the  edit¬ 
ing,  to  point  out  in  detail  the  method  by  which  the 
great  effects  are  gained,  without  giving  such  an  out¬ 
line  of  the  speech  that  a  student,  reading  it,  could 
have  no  further  difficulty  in  making  a  brief  of  the 
speech.  If  in  any  place  the  analysis  of  a  speech 
seems  inadequate  the  fault  should  be  attributed  to 
this  reason,  for  in  several  places  it  seemed  wisest  to 
leave  to  the  student,  guided  by  his  instructor,  detailed 
analysis  of  methods. 

The  editor  hopes,  then,  that  the  work  will  be  useful 
in  three  ways  :  as  a  fund  of  illustration  for  lectures 
on  Argumentative  Composition  which  a  class  may 
easily  possess  in  common  with  its  instructor ;  as 
material  for  training  in  the  drawing  of  briefs  ;  and 
for  analyses  by  the  class  or  the  instructor,  by  the 
methods  used  in  the  notes,  not  merely  for  structure 
but  also  for  persuasive  methods  and  argumentative 
skill. 

Though  the  first  four  selections  are  intended  espe¬ 
cially  to  bear  on  the  drawing  of  briefs.  Lord  Erskine’s 
speech  on  the  handling  of  evidence,  and  Henry 


PREFA  CE. 


Vll 


Ward  Beecher’s  speech  on  persuasion,  all  of  these 
illustrate  more  than  one  idea,  and  in  the  book  as  a 
whole,  the  student  should  find  illustrations  for  nearly 
all,  if  not  all,  of  the  rudimentary  rules  for  argumen¬ 
tation. 

^  Geo.  P.  Baker. 

Cambridge,  Mass., 

Septe7nber  i8,  1893. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface,  ..........  iii 

Directions  for  Drawing  a  Brief,  .....  ix 

Specimen  Brief,  .........  i 

/IDaterial  for  JSriefs. 

Lord  Chatham,  on  Removing  Troops  from  Boston,  .  .  7 

l.ord  Mansfield,  in  the  Case  of  Evans,  ....  22 

Junius,  Letter  to  the  Printer  of  the  Public  Advertiser^  .  41 

T.  H.  Huxley,  Lecture  1.  of  Three  Lectures  on  Evolution,  60 

BrGuinent  in  (General. 

Lord  Erskine,  Defense  of  Gordon,  .....  86 

IPersuasion. 

Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Liverpool  Speech,  .  ,  ,  .154 


vin 


DIRECTIONS  FOR  DRAWING 

A  BRIEF.' 


A  good  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  parts : 
(i)  The  Introduction  ;  (2)  The  Brief  Proper  ;  (3) 
The  Conclusion. 

1.  The  Ifitroduction  should  state  as  concisely  as 
possible,  by  suggestive  phrases  of  a  line  or  two,  the 
facts  necessary  to  an  understanding  of  the  discussion 
itself :  namely,  how  the  question  arose  ;  what  are  the 
facts  admitted  by  both  sides  ;  and  by  definition  and 
exposition,  what  is  the  exact  point  at  issue.  It  should 
clear  away  all  extraneous  matter,  and  should  place 
the  essential  idea  clearly  before  the  reader. 

2.  The  Brief  Proper  should  by  a  series  of  headings 
and  subheadings  very  concisely  make  clear  to  any 
intelligent  reader  the  development  of  the  argument 
by  which  the  writer  expects  to  prove  the  affirmative 
or  the  negative  of  the  question  he  has  clearly  stated 
in  the  Introduction.  From  all  the  evidence  for  and 
against  him  in  the  case,  the  writer  should  first  select 
the  main  ideas  that  prove  his  conclusion.  These  he 
should  arrange  in  a  climactic  order  leading  up  to  his 
conclusion,  the  strongest  idea  coming  last  under  ordi- 

^  Taken  from  Specimen  Briefs,  drawn  by  Harvard  Students.” 
Second  edition.  G.  P.  Baker.  Harvard  Co-operative  Society, 
Cambridge. 


IX 


X  DIRECTIONS  FOR  DRA  WING  A  BRIEF. 

nary  circumstances.  Under  these  main  ideas  he 
should  next  place  the  ideas  that  support  these  but 
are  not  by  themselves  equal  in  importance  to  the 
main  headings.  In  stating  these  subheadings  he 
should  be  careful  to  keep  the  climactic  order.  All  of 
the  main  headings  and  the  subheadings  should  read 
as  reasons  for  the  conclusion.  The  correlation  of  all 
the  parts  should  be  distinctly  marked  by  letters  and 
numbers. 

The  Proof  that  a  writer  will  use  divides  itself 
roughly  into  two  parts  :  direct  proof  and  refutation. 
When  a  writer  simply  states  an  idea  of  his  own  and 
supports  it,  that  is  direct  proof ;  when  he  takes  an 
idea  urged  against  him  by  his  opponent  and  tries  to 
overcome  it,  he  refutes.  If  the  objection  is  a  broad 
one, — to  the  writer’s  case  as  a  whole, — it  should  stand 
by  itself,  marked  refutation  ;  if  it  is  an  objection  to 
some  division  or  subdivision  of  the  writer’s  work,  he 
will  meet  it  best  in  treating  that  division  or  subdivi¬ 
sion.  That  is,  his  idea  is  proved  not  only  by  proving 

A,  and  reasons  for  it,  but  by  disproving  the  state¬ 
ment  d.  made  by  his  opponent. 

3.  The  Conclusio7i  simply  sums  up  briefly  the  argu¬ 
ment,  showing  clearly  how  it  leads  to  the  conclusion, 
which — unless  it  is  given  at  the  beginning  as  the  prop¬ 
osition — should  always  be  stated. 


SPECIMEN  BRIEF/ 


DRAWN  FROM  THE  SPEECH  OF  LORD  CHATHAM  ON 
HIS  MOTION  FOR  THE  IMMEDIATE  REMOVAL  OF  THE 
BRITISH  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON. 

Introduction. 

I. 

The  present  course  of  the  Ministry  suggests  un* 
fairness. 


II. 

The  Ministry  has  been  guilty  of  unfairness,  namely 
of  misrepresentation,  for 

{^a)  Their  representations  that  led  to  the  passage  of 
the  measures  obnoxious  to  the  American  people 
have  been  proved  false,  for 
(i)  The  ministers  said  that  these  measures  would 
overawe  the  Americans,  but  the  measures  have 
solidified  the  resistance  of  the  Americans. 

III. 

Therefore,  the  troops  should  be  Immediately  with¬ 
drawn  from  Boston. 

^  For  further  illustration  of  briefs,  good  and  bad,  see  “  Speci¬ 
men  Briefs.” 


2 


SPECIMEN  BRIEF. 


IV. 

But  a  hearer,  in  considering  this  attempt  at  justice, 
should  remember  that  to  try  to  be  just  to  America  is 
not  necessarily  to  exempt  her  from  all  obedience  to 
Great  Britain. 


Brief  Proper. 

I. 

The  removal  of  the  troops  is  necessary,  because 
A.  It  will  show  the  willingness  of  the  English  to 
treat  amicably. 

The  resistance  of  the  Americans  was  necessary 
because 

I.  The  obnoxious  acts  of  Parliament  were 
tyrannical. 

C.  The  means  of  enforcing  the  measures  of  Par¬ 
liament  have  failed,  for 

I.  The  army  of  General  Gage  is  ‘‘  penned  up — 
pining  in  inglorious  inactivity.” 

II.  The  objection  that  the  presence  of  this 
army  in  Boston  is  a  safeguard  is  untrue,  for 

{a)  It  is  powerless,  and  held  in  contempt. 
(b)  It  is  an  irritation  to  the  Americans. 

(^)  The  objection  that  General  Gage  is 
needlessly  inactive  is  untrue,  for 

(i)  Any  activity  on  his  part  would 
mean  “  civil  and  unnatural  war.” 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  by  the  aid  of  the  army  to 
enforce  its  measures,  the  result  will  be  bad,  for 

I.  If  Parliament  were  victorious,  it  would  be 
over  an  embittered  people. 


SPECIMEN  BRIEF. 


3 


II.  The  troops  are  not  strong  enough  to  resist 
three  million  united,  courageous  people. 

III.  Persecution  of  these  men  whose  fathers  left 
their  homes  to  escape  it  should  cease,  since 

{a)  The  objection  of  the  Ministry  that 
the  Americans  must  not  be  heard  ”  is 
unjust,  since 

(i)  It ‘‘ lumps  the  innocent  with  the 
guilty.^ 

Ec  The  statement  that  ‘‘the  union  in  America  can¬ 
not  last  is  untrue,  for 

I.  The  evidence  of  the  so-called  “commercial 
bodies  ”  is  unreliable,  for 

[a)  They  do  not  really  represent  the  class 
for  whom  they  profess  to  speak, 

{b)  And  they  are  paid  agents  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment. 

(c)  Even  if  they  did  represent  the  com¬ 
mercial  class  of  America,  their  judgment 
would  be  untrustworthy,  for 

(1)  Not  the  commercial  class,  but  the 
farming  class,  are  the  strength  of 
a  nation  ; 

(2)  And  the  American  farmers  are 
unitedly  arrayed  for  liberty. 

II.  The  evidence  of  an  authority  (Dr.  Franklin 
plainly  hinted)  proves  that  the  Americans, 
for  the  sake  of  liberty,  would  endure  far 
more  than  they  have  as  yet  suffered,  even 
war  and  rapine. 

F.  The  statement  that  the  Americans  should  be 
punished  for  illegal  violence  is  untrue,  for 


4 


SPECIMEN  BRIEF, 


I.  A  chance  for  reconciliation  should  not  be 
missed. 

II.  Thirty  thousand  in  Boston  should  not  be 
punished  for  the  fault  of  forty  or  fifty. 

III.  Punishment  means  arousing  the  unap¬ 
peasable  wrath  of  the  whole  American 
people. 

IV.  Even  if  the  English  people  are  victorious, 
they  cannot  control  the  great  tracts  of  con¬ 
quered  country. 

V.  The  resistance  should  have  been  foreseen, 
for 

(a)  The  spirit  that  resists  in  America  is 
that  of  all  English  stock,  that  which 
established  the  essential  maxim  of  Eng- 
lish  liberty,  ‘‘  No  taxation  without  the 
consent  of  the  taxed.” 

VI.  The  resistance  will  become  too  strong  to 
be  overcome,  for 

[a)  The  English  Whigs  will  aid  them,  for 
(i)  The  spirit  that  moves  the  Americans 
is  that  which  has  always  belonged  to 
the  Whigs. 

[d)  The  Irish  will  aid  them,  for 

(i)  They  have  always  maintained  the 
ideas  the  Americans  support. 

(^r)  The  means  to  oppose  this  united  body 
is  weak,  for 

(i)  A  few  regiments  in  America  and 
18,000  men  at  home  must  oppose 
three  million  Americans,  millions  of 
Englishmen,  and  all  the  Irish. 


SPECIMEN  BRIEF. 


S 


(2)  And  ministerial  tricks  against  it 
will  fail,  for 

(a)  The  result  must  inevitably  be 
a  ^‘checkmate”  for  the  minis¬ 
ters. 

G.  This  removal  of  the  troops  must  precede  any 
other  step,  because 

I.  The  fear  and  the  resentment  of  the  Ameri¬ 
cans  must  first  of  all  be  remedied  ; 

II.  And  while  the  troops  remain,  resentment 
will  remain,  for 

{a)  Any  measures  secured  by  force  would 
be,  with  the  army  in  Boston,  doubly 
irritating. 

(b)  When,  as  is  the  case,  force  cannot  be 
used,  the  mere  presence  of  the  army, 
though  it  is  itself  in  danger,  is  irritating. 

H.  The  views  of  Congress  are  moderate  and  rea¬ 
sonable. 

I.  It  is  an  old  maxim  that  the  first  concession 
comes  most  fitly  from  the  superior, 

J.  While  every  policy  urges  withdrawal  of  the 
troops,  every  danger  warns  the  English  from 
keeping  to  the  old  course,  for 

I.  That  means  foreign  war,  for 

[a)  France  and  Spain  are  watching  for  an 
advantageous  chance  to  interfere. 

II.  That  means  domestic  trouble,  for 
(a)  The  king  will  lose  all  his  power. 

(d)  The  kingdom  will  be  utterly  undone.* 

*  Note  that  a  conclusion  is  not  printed  by  itself  because,  as  the 
proposition,  it  has  been  given  in  Introduction,  III, 


f 


SPECIMENS  OF  ARGUMENTATION. 


MATERIAL  FOR  BRIEFS. 


Xorb  Cbatbam. 

Born  1708.  Died  1778. 

ON  A  MOTION  FOR  AN  ADDRESS  TO  HIS  MAJESTY, 
TO  GIVE  IMMEDIATE  ORDERS  FOR  REMOVING  HIS 
TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON. 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Lords ^  January  20,  1 775. 

[The  insistence  of  the  King  that  the  duty  on  tea  should  be  main'- 
tained,  when  all  the  other  taxation  of  the  Colonies  had  been  aban¬ 
doned,  led,  in  1773,  to  the  outbreak  at  Boston,  when  the  cargoes  of 
the  English  tea  ships  were  thrown  into  the  harbor.  The  King,  as  a 
result  of  this  action,  seemed  bent  upon  turning  his  American  sub¬ 
jects  into  rebels  by  treating  them  as  rebellious.  The  Ministry  pre¬ 
sented  to  and  carried  through  Parliament  several  very  determined 
measures, — bills  to  close  the  port  of  Boston,  to  deprive  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Colony  of  its  charter,  to  bring  persons  accused  of  capital 
offenses  to  England  for  trial, — and  sent  troops  to  Boston  to  enforce 
them.  It  was  asserted  by  the  ministers  that  these  measures  would 
separate  Massachusetts  from  the  rest  of  the  colonies,  and  would 
overawe  her.  Instead,  Massachusetts  called  out  and  armed  her 
militia,  and  all  the  other  states,  except  Georgia,  took  up  her  cause, 
sending  delegates  to  the  Congress  which  in  September,  1774,  met 
at  Philadelphia.  This  Congress  issued  an  “  Address  to  the  People 
of  Great  Britain,”  stating  the  case  of  the  Colonies.  Still,  though 


7 


8 


LORD  CHATHAM. 


this  determined  front  was  shown  by  the  Colonies,  they  generally 
shrank  from  rising  against  the  mother  country.  There  seemed 
still  to  be  a  chance  for  reconciliation.  Lord  Chatham,  who  had 
steadily  opposed  the  disastrous  measures  of  Lord  North  and  the 
King,  hoped  for  much  from  concessions,  and  in  January,  1775, 
took  Dr.  Franklin  into  his  councils.  On  the  twentieth  of  the  month, 
when  Lord  Dartmouth,  Secretary  of  State,  laid  before  the  House 
of  Lords  various  papers  concerning  American  affairs,  Lord  Chat¬ 
ham  moved  “An  Address  to  his  Majesty  for  the  Immediate 
Removal  of  the  Troops  from  Boston,”  and  supported  his  motion 
with  the  following  speech.] 

My  Lords  :  After  more  than  six  weeks’  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  papers  now  before  you,  on  a  subject  so 
momentous,  at  a  time  when  the  fate  of  this  nation 
hangs  on  every  hour,  the  Ministry  have  at  length  con¬ 
descended  to  submit  to  the  consideration  of  this  5 
House,  intelligence  from  America  with  which  your 
Lordships  and  the  public  have  been  long  and  fully 
acquainted. 

The  measures  of  last  year,  my  Lords,  which  have 
produced  the  present  alarming  state  of  America,  10 
were  founded  upon  misrepresentation.  They  were 
violent,  precipitate,  and  vindictive.  The  nation  was 
told  that  it  was  only  a  faction  in  Boston  which  opposed 
all  lawful  government ;  that  an  unwarrantable  injury 
had  been  done  to  private  property,  for  which  the  jus- 15 
tice  of  Parliament  was  called  upon  to  order  repara¬ 
tion  ;  that  the  least  appearance  of  firmness  would  awe 
the  Americans  into  submission,  and  upon  only  passing 
the  Rubicon  we  should  be  ‘‘  sme  clade  victor '' 

That  the  people  might  choose  their  representatives  20 
under  the  influence  of  those  misrepresentations,  the 
Parliament  was  precipitately  dissolved.  Thus  the 


ON  REMOVING  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON. 


9 


nation  was  to  be  rendered  instrumental  in  executing 
the  vengeance  of  the  administration  on  that  injured, 
unhappy,  traduced  people. 

But  now,  my  Lords,  we  find  that  instead  of  suppress- 
5  ing  the  opposition  of  the  faction  at  Boston,  these 
measures  have  spread  it  over  the  whole  continent. 
They  have  united  that  whole  people  by  the  most  indis¬ 
soluble  of  all  bands — intolerable  wrongs.  The  just 
retribution  is  an  indiscriminate,  unmerciful  proscrip- 
lotion  of  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  unheard  and 
untried.  The  bloodless  victory  is  an  impotent  general 
with  his  dishonored  army,  trusting  solely  to  the  pickaxe 
and  the  spade  for  security  against  the  just  indignation 
of  an  injured  and  insulted  people. 

15  My  Lords,  I  am  happy  that  a  relaxation  of  my 
infirmities  permits  me  to  seize  this  earliest  opportu¬ 
nity  of  offering  my  poor  advice  to  save  this  unhappy 
country,  at  this  moment  tottering  to  its  ruin.  But,  as 
I  have  not  the  honor  of  access  to  his  Majesty,  I  will 
20  endeavor  to  transmit  to  him,  through  the  constitu¬ 
tional  channel  of  this  House,  my  idjeas  on  American 
business,  to  rescue  him  from  the  misadvice  of  his 
present  ministers.  I  congratulate  your  Lordships 
that  the  business  is  at  last  entered  upon  by  the  noble 
25  Lord’s  [Lord  Dartmouth]  laying  the  papers  before 
you.  As  I  suppose  your  Lordships  are  too  well 
apprised  of  their  contents,  I  hope  I  am  not  premature 
in  submitting  to  you  my  present  motion.^  [The 
motion  was  read.] 

30  *  The  prejudicial  effect  of  this  introduction  should  be  noted. 

Lord  Chatham,  beginning^  with  a  statement  of  the  delay  of  the  Min¬ 
istry  in  presenting  to  the  Lords  papers  on  American  matters,  which 


i 


lO 


LORD  CHATHAM, 


I  wish,  my  Lords,  not  to  lose  a  day  in  this  urgent, 
pressing  crisis.  An  hour  now  lost  in  allaying  ferments 
in  America  may  produce  years  of  calamity.  For  my 
own  part,  I  will  not  desert,  for  a  moment,  the  conduct 
of  this  weighty  business,  from  the  first  to  the  last.  5 
Unless  nailed  to  my  bed  by  the  extremity  of  sickness, 

I  will  give  it  unremitted  attention.  I  will  knock  at 
the  door  of  this  sleeping  and  confounded  Ministry, 
and  will  rouse  them  to  a  sense  of  their  danger. 

When  I  state  the  importance  of  the  colonies  to  this  lo 
country,  and  the  magnitude  of  danger  hanging  over 
this  country  from  the  present  plan  of  misadministra- 
tion  practiced  against  them,  I  desire  not  to  be  under¬ 
stood  to  argue  for  a  reciprocity  of  indulgence  between 
England  and  America.  I  contend  not  for  indulgence,  15 
but  justice  to  America  ;  and  I  shall  ever  contend  that 
the  Americans  justly  owe  obedience  to  us  in  a  limited 
degree — they  owe  obedience  to  our  ordinances  of 
trade  and  navigation  ;  but  let  the  line  be  skilfully 
drawn  between  the  objects  of  those  ordinances  and  20 
their  private  internal  property.  Let  the  sacredness  of 
their  property  remain  inviolate.  Let  it  be  taxable 
only  by  their  own  consent,  given  in  their  provincial 
assemblies,  else  it  will  cease  to  be  property.  As  to  the 
metaphysical  refinements,  attempting  to  show  that  the  21 
Americans  are  equally  free  from  obedience  and  corn- 

makes  a  hearer  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the  Ministry,  passes  to  a 
direct  charge  that  only  misrepresentation  (evidently  by  the  Ministry, 
though  this  is  not  directly  stated)  led  to  actions  of  Parliament  which 
resulted  in  the  ignominy  that  Lord  Chatham  paints  by  an  illustra-  30 
tion.  The  words  of  this  illustration  he  carefully  selected  to  goad 
his  hearers  to  contempt  for  those  guilty  of  the  misrepresentation. 


ON  REMOVING  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON.  H 

mercial  restraints,  as  from  taxation  for  revenue,  as 
being  unrepresented  here,  I  pronounce  them  futile, 
frivolous,  and  groundless. 

When  I  urge  this  measure  of  recalling  the  troops 
5  from  Boston,  I  urge  it  on  this  pressing  principle,  that 
it  is  necessarily  preparatory  to  the  restoration  of  your 
peace  and  the  establishment  of  your  prosperity.  It 
will  then  appear  that  you  are  disposed  to  treat  amica¬ 
bly  and  equitably  ;  and  to  consider,  revise,  and  repeal, 
loif  it  should  be  found  necessary  (as  I  affirm  it  will), 
those  violent  acts  and  declarations  which  have  dis¬ 
seminated  confusion  throughout  your  empire. 

Resistance  to  your  acts  was  necessary  as  it  was 
just ;  and  your  vain  declarations  of  the  omnipotence 
15  of  Parliament,  and  your  imperious  doctrines  of  the 
necessity  of  submission,  will  be  found  equally  im¬ 
potent  to  convince  or  to  enslave  your  fellow-subjects 
in  America,  who  feel  that  tyranny,  whether  ambitioned 
by  an  individual  part  of  the  Legislature,  or  the  bodies 
20  who  compose  it,  is  equally  intolerable  to  British  sub¬ 
jects. 

The  means  of  enforcing  this  thraldom  are  found  to 
be  as  ridiculous  and  weak  in  practice  as  they  are  un¬ 
just  in  principle.  Indeed,  I  cannot  but  feel  the  most 
25  anxious  sensibility  for  the  situation  of  General  Gage, 
and  the  troops  under  his  command  ;  thinking  him,  as 
I  do,  a  man  of  humanity  and  understanding  ;  and 
entertaining,  as  I  ever  will,  the  highest  respect,  the 
warmest  love  for  the  British  ti^oops.  Their  situa- 
3otion  is  truly  unworthy  ;  penned  up — pining  in  inglo¬ 
rious  inactivity.  They  are  an  army  of  impotence. 
You  may  call  them  an  army  of  safety  and  of  guard  ; 


12 


LORD  CHATHAM. 


but  they  are,  in  truth,  an  army  of  impotence  and  con¬ 
tempt  ;  and,  to  make  the  folly  equal  to  the  disgrace, 
they  are  an  army  of  irritation  and  vexation. 

But  I  find  a  report  creeping  abroad  that  ministers 
censure  General  Gage’s  inactivity.  Let  them  censure  5 
him — it  becomes  them — it  becomes  their  justice  and 
their  honor.  I  mean  not  to  censure  his  inactivity. 

It  is  a  prudent  and  necessary  inaction  ;  but  it  is  a 
miserable  condition,  where  disgrace  is  prudence,  and 
where  it  is  necessary  to  be  contemptible.  This  tame- 10 
ness,  however  contemptible,  cannot  be  censured  ;  for 
the  first  drop  of  blood  shed  in  civil  and  unnatural  war 
might  be  immedicabile  viilnus'' 

I  therefore  urge  and  conjure  your  Lordships  imme¬ 
diately  to  adopt  this  conciliating  measure.  I  will  15 
pledge  myself  for  its  immediately  producing  concilia¬ 
tory  effects,  by  its  being  thus  well-timed  ;  but  if  you 
delay  till  your  vain  hope  shall  be  accomplished  of 
triumphantly  dictating  reconciliation,  you  delay  for¬ 
ever.  But,  admitting  that  this  hope  (which  in  truth  20 
is  desperate)  should  be  accomplished,  what  do  you 
gain  by  the  imposition  of  your  victorious  amity  ?  You 
will  be  untriisted  and  unthanked.  Adopt,  then,  the 
grace,  while  you  have  the  opportunity,  of  rec(oncile- 
ment — or  at  least  prepare  the  way.  Allay  the  ferment  25 
preparing  in  America,  by  removing  the  obnoxious  hos¬ 
tile  cause — obnoxious  and  unserviceable  ;  for  their 
merit  can  be  only  inaction  :  “  Non  dimicare  est  vin- 
cere^'  their  victory  can  never  be  by  exertions.  Their 
force  would  be  most  disproportionately  exerted  against  3u 
a  brave,  generous,  and  united  people,  with  arms  in 
their  hands,  and  courage  in  their  hearts  :  three  mil- 


ON  REMOVING  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON, 


13 


lions  of  people,  the  genuine  descendants  of  a  valiant 
and  pious  ancestry,  driven  to  those  deserts  by  the 
narrow  maxims  of  a  superstitious  tyranny.  And  is 
the  spirit  of  persecution  never  to  be  appeased  ?  Are 
5  the  brave  sons  of  those  brave  forefathers  to  inherit 
their  sufferings,  as  they  have  inherited  their  virtues  ? 
Are  they  to  sustain  the  infliction  of  the  most  oppres¬ 
sive  and  unexampled  severity,  beyond  the  accounts  of 
history  or  description  of  poetry  :  ‘‘  Rhadanianthus  hahet 
iQ  durissima  regna^  castigatque  auditque.’'  So  says  the 
wisest  poet,  and  perhaps  the  wisest  statesman  and 
politician.  But  our  ministers  say  the  A^nericans  must 
not  be  heard.  They  have  been  condemned  unheard. 
The  indiscriminate  hand  of  vengeance  has  lumped 
15  together  innocent  and  guilty  ;  with  all  the  formalities 
of  hostility,  has  blocked  up  the  town  [Boston],  and 
reduced  to  beggary  and  famine  thirty  thousand  in¬ 
habitants. 

But  his  Majesty  is  advised  that  the  union  in 
20  America  cannot  last.  Ministers  have  more  eyes  than 
I,  and  should  have  more  ears  ;  but,  with  all  the  in¬ 
formation  I  have  been  able  to  procure,  I  can  pro¬ 
nounce  it  a  union  solid,  permanent,  and  effectual. 
.Ministers  may  satisfy  themselves,  and  delude  the 
25  public,  with  the  report  of  what  they  call  commercial 
bodies  in  America.  They  are  not  commercial.  They 
are  your  packers  and  factors.  They  live  upon  noth¬ 
ing,  for  I  call  commission  nothing.  I  speak  of  the 
ministerial  authority  for  this  American  intelligence — 
30  the  runners  for  government,  who  are  paid  for  their 
intelligence.  But  these  are  not  the  men,  nor  this  the 
influence,  to  be  considered  in  America,  when  we  esti- 


14 


LORD  CHATHAM. 


mate  the  firmness  of  their  union.  Even  to  extend 
the  question,  and  to  take  in  the  really  mercantile 
circle,  will  be  totally  inadequate  to  the  consideration. 
Trade,  indeed,  increases  the  wealth  and  glory  of  a 
country  ;  but  its  real  strength  and  stamina  are  to  be  5 
looked  for  among  the  cultivators  of  the  land.  In 
their  simplicity  of  life  is  found  the  simpleness  of 
virtue — the  integrity  and  courage  of  freedom.  These 
true,  genuine  sons  of  the  earth  are  invincible  ;  and 
they  surround  and  hem  in  the  mercantile  bodies,  10 
even  if  these  bodies  (which  supposition  I  totally 
disclaim)  could  be  supposed  disaffected  to  the  cause 
of  liberty.  Of  this  general  spirit  existing  in  the 
British  nation  (for  so  I  wish  to  distinguish  the  real  and 
genuine  Americans  from  the  pseudo-traders  I  have  15 
described)  of  this  spirit  of  independence,  animating 
the  7iation  of  America,  I  have  the  most  authentic  in¬ 
formation.  It  is  not  new  among  them.  It  is,  and  has 
ever  been,  their  established  principle,  their  confirmed 
persuasion.  It  is  their  nature  and  their  doctrine.  20 
I  remember,  some  years  ago,  when  the  repeal  of 
the  Stamp  Act  was  in  agitation,  conversing  in  a 
friendly  confidence  with  a  person  of  undoubted  re¬ 
spect  and  authenticity,  on  that  subject,  and  he  assured 
me  with  a  certainty  which  his  judgment  and  oppor- 25 
tunity  gave  him,  that  these  were  the  prevalent  and 
steady  principles  of  America — that  you  might  destroy 
their  towns,  and  cut  them  off  from  the  superfluities, 
perhaps  the  conveniences  of  life,  but  that  they  were 
prepared  to  despise  your  power,  and  would  not  lament  30 
their  loss,  while  they  have — what,  my  Lords  ? — their 
woods  and  their  liberty.  The  name  of  my  authority. 


ON  REMOVING  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON.  15 

if  I  am  called  upon,  will  authenticate  the  opinion 
irrefragably.^ 

If  illegal  violences  have  been,  as  it  is  said,  com¬ 
mitted  in. America,  prepare  the  way,  open  the  door 
5  of  possibility  for  acknowledgment  and  satisfaction  ; 
but  proceed  not  to  such  coercion,  such  proscription  ; 
cease  your  indiscriminate  inflictions ;  amerce  not 
thirty  thousand — oppress  not  three  millions  for  the 
fault  of  forty  or  fifty  individuals.  Such  severity  of 
10  injustice  must  forever  render  incurable  the  wounds 
you  have  already  given  your  colonies  ;  you  irritate 
them  to  unappeasable  rancor.  AVhat  though  you 
march  from  town  to  town,  and  from  province  to  prov¬ 
ince  ;  though  you  should  be  able  to  enforce  a  tempor- 
15  ary  and  local  submission  (which  I  only  suppose,  not 
admit),  how  shall  you  be  able  to  secure  the  obedience 
of  the  country  you  leave  behind  you  in  your  progress, 
to  grasp  the  dominion  of  eighteen  hundred  miles  of 
continent,  populous  in  numbers,  possessing  valor, 
20  liberty,  and  resistance  ? 

This  resistance  to  your  arbitrary  system  of  taxa¬ 
tion  might  have  been  foreseen.  It  was  obvious  from 
the  nature  of  things,  and  of  mankind  ;  and,  above  all, 
from  the  Whiggish  spirit  flourishing  in  that  country. 
25  The  spirit  which  now  resists  your  taxation  in 
America  is  the  same  which  formerly  opposed  loans, 
benevolences,  and  ship-money  in  England  ;  the  same 
spirit  which  called  all  England  on  its  legs,”  and  by 
the  Bill  of  Rights  vindicated  the  English  Constitu- 
3otion  ;  the  same  spirit  which  established  the  great 
fundamental,  essential  maxim  of  your  liberties,  that  no 

^  Benjamin  Franklin. 


i6 


LORD  CHATHAM, 


subject  of  England  shall  be  taxed  but  by  his  own  con¬ 
sent^ 

This  glorious  spirit  of  Whiggism  animates  three 
millions  in  America,  who  prefer  poverty  with  liberty 
to  gilded  chains  and  sordid  affluence  ;  and  who  will  5 
die  in  defense  of  their  rights  as  men,  as  freemen. 
What  shall  oppose  this  spirit,  aided  by  the  congenial 
flame  glowing  in  the  breast  of  every  Whig  in  England, 
to  the  amount,  I  hope,  of  double  the  American  num¬ 
bers  ?  Ireland  they  have  to  a  man.  In  that  country,  10 
joined  as  it  is  with  the  cause  of  the  colonies,  and 
placed  at  their  head,  the  distinction  I  contend  for  is 
and  must  be  observed.  This  country  superintends 
and  controls  their  trade  and  navigation  ;  but  they  tax 
the?nselves.  And  this  distinction  between  external  and  15 

^Two  main  ideas  underlie  this  speech,  each  skilfully  selected 
for  its  persuasive  appeal  to  the  audience  addressed  and  developed 
with  masterly  skill.  The  first,  that  all  the  existing  troubles  with 
America  have  resulted  from  misrepresentation  by  the  Ministry, 
frees  the  nation  at  large  from  shame,  disposes  them  to  listen  20 
to  Lord  Chatham’s  plea  that  a  bad  business  brought  about  by 
misrepresentation  cannot  be  bettered  by  pursuing  the  old  policy. 
When  this  first  idea  and  its  corollary  have  been  stated.  Lord 
Chatham,  to  support  his  statement  of  the  plan  to  be  pursued, 
brings  in  the  second  idea,  that  from  what  his  hearers  prize  as  25 
perhaps  their  greatest  inheritance  from  their  fathers,  the  principle 
that  a  man  shall  not,  without  his  consent,  be  taxed,  the  Americans, 
inheriting  this  idea  from  the  same  forefathers,  took  their  inspira¬ 
tion  for  resistance.  Logic  and  fairness,  then, — two  powerful 
appeals  to  the  British  mind, — demanded  that  a  trouble  which  arose  30 
because  the  English  had  by  misrepresentation  been  made  to  mis¬ 
understand  the  Americans  when  standing  firm  for  a  principle 
equally  dear  to  the  English,  should  be  overcome  by  prompt  con¬ 
cessions  from  England. 


ON  REMOVING  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON.  i? 

internal  control  is  sacred  and  insurmountable  ;  it  is 
involved  in  the  abstract  nature  of  things.  Property 
is  private,  individual,  absolute.  Trade  is  an  extended 
and  complicated  consideration  :  it  reaches  as  far  as 
5  ships  can  sail  or  winds  can  blow  :  it  is  a  great  and 
various  machine.  To  regulate  the  numberless  move¬ 
ments  of  its  several  parts,  and  combine  them  into 
effect  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  requires  the  super¬ 
intending  wisdom  and  energy  of  the  supreme  power 
loin  the  empire.  But  this  supreme  power  has  no  effect 
toward  internal  taxation  ;  for  it  does  not  exist  in  that 
relation  ;  there  is  no  such  thing,  no  such  idea  in  this 
Constitution,  as  a  supreme  power  operating  upon 
property.  .  Let  this  distinction  then  remain  forever 
15  ascertained  ;  taxation  is  theirs,  commercial  regulation 
is  ours.  As  an  American,  I  would  recognize  to  Eng¬ 
land  her  supreme  right  of  regulating  commerce  and 
navigation  ;  as  an  Englishman  by  birth  and  principle, 
I  recognize  to  the  Americans  their  supreme,  unaliena- 
2oble  right  in  their  property:  a  right  which  they  are 
justified  in  the  defense  of  to  the  last  extremity.  To 
maintain  this  principle  is  the  common  cause  of  the 
Whigs  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  and  on  this. 
“  'Tis  liberty  to  liberty  engaged,”  that  they  will  defend 
25  themselves,  their  families,  and  their  country.  In  this 
great  cause  they  are  immovably  allied  :  it  is  the 
alliance  of  God  and  nature — immutable,  eternal — 
fixed  as  the  firmament  of  heaven. 

To  such  united  force,  what  force  shall  be  opposed  ? 
30 What,  my  Lords?  A  few  regiments  in  America,  and 
seventeen  or  eighteen  thousand  men  at  home  !  The 
idea  is  too  ridiculous  to  take  up  a  moment  of  your 


LORD  CHATHAM. 


x8 

Lordships*  time.  Nor  can  such  a  national  and  prin¬ 
cipled  union  be  resisted  by  the  tricks  of  office,  or 
ministerial  manoeuvre.  Laying  of  papers  on  your 
table,  or  counting  numbers  on  a  division,  will  not 
avert  or  postpone  the  hour  of  danger.  It  must  arrive,  5 
my  Lords,  unless  these  fatal  acts  are  done  away ;  it 
must  arrive  in  all  its  horrors,  and  then  these  boastful 
ministers,  spite  of  all  their  confidence  and  all  their 
manoeuvres,  shall  be  forced  to  hide  their  heads.  They 
shall  be  forced  to  a  disgraceful  abandonment  of  their  10 
present  measures  and  principles,  which  they  avow, 
but  cannot  defend  ;  measures  which  they  presume  to 
attempt,  but  cannot  hope  to  effectuate.  They  cannot, 
my  Lords,  they  cannot  stir  a  step ;  they  have  not  a 
move  left ;  they  are  checkyjiattd  !  15 

But  it  is  not  repealing  this  act  of  Parliament,  it  is 
not  repealing  a  piece  of  parchment,  that  can  restore 
America  to  our  bosom.  You  must  repeal  her  fears 
and  her  resentments,  and  you  may  then  hope  for  her 
love  and  gratitude.  But  now,  insulted  with  an  armed  20 
force  posted  at  Boston,  irritated  with  a  hostile  array 
before  her  eyes,  her  concessions,  if  you  could  force 
them,  would  be  suspicious  and  insecure  ;  they  will  be 
irato  a?nmo''  [with  angry  spirit];  they  will  not  be 
the  sound,  honorable  passions  of  freemen  ;  they  will  25 
be  the  dictates  of  fear  and  extortions  of  force.  But 
it  is  more  than  evident  that  you  cannot  force  them, 
united  as  they  are,  to  your  unworthy  terms  of  submis¬ 
sion.  It  is  impossible.  And  when  I  hear  General 
Gage  censured  for  inactivity,  I  must  retort  with  indig-  30 
nation  on  those  whose  intemperate  measures  and 
improvident  counsels  have  betrayed  him  into  his 


Oy  REMOVIXG  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON. 


19 


present  situation.  His  situation  reminds  me,  my 
Lords,  of  the  answer  of  a  French  general  in  the  civil 
wars  of  France — M.  Conde  opposed  to  M.  Turenne. 
He  was  asked  how  it  happened  that  he  did  not  take 
5  his  adversary  prisoner,  as  he  was  often  very  near  him. 

J’ai  peur,”  replied  Conde,  very  honestly,  j’ai  peur 
qu’il  ne  me  prenne  ;  ”  Fm  afraid  he' ll  take  me. 

When  your  Lordships  look  at  the  papers  transmitted 
us  from  America — when  you  consider  their  decency, 
10  firmness,  and  wisdom,  you  cannot  but  respect  their 
cause,  and  wish  to  make  it  your  own.  For  myself, 
I  must  declare  and  avow,  that  in  all  my  reading 
and  observation — and  it  has  been  my  favorite  study — 
I  have  read  Thucydides,  and  have  studied  and  ad- 
15  mired  the  master-states  of  the  world — that  for  solidity 
of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wisdom  of  con¬ 
clusion,  under  such  a  complication  of  difficult  circum¬ 
stances,  no  nation  or  body  of  men  can  stand  in 
preference  to  the  general  Congress  at  Philadelphia. 
20 1  trust  it  is  obvious  to  your  Lordships  that  all 
attempts  to  impose  servitude  upon  such  men,  to 
establish  despotism  over  such  a  mighty  continental 
nation,  must  be  vain,  must  be  fatal.  We  shall  be 
forced  ultimately  to  retract ;  let  us  retract  while  we 
25  can,  not  when  we  must.  I  say  we  must  necessarily 
undo  these  violent  oppressive  acts.*^  They  must  be 
repealed.  You  will  repeal  them.  I  pledge  myself 
for  it,  that  you  will,  in  the  end,  repeal  them.  I  stake 
my  reputation  on  it.  I  will  consent  to  be  taken  for 
30  an  idiot  if  they  are  not  finally  repealed.  Avoid,  then, 

The  Boston  Port  Bill  and  the  act  taking  away  the  charter  of 
Massachusetts. 


20 


LORD  CHATHAM, 


this  humiliating,  disgraceful  necessity.  With  a  dig¬ 
nity  becoming  your  exalted  situation,  make  the  first 
advances  to  concord,  to  peace,  and  happiness  ;  for 
that  is  your  true  dignity,  to  act  with  prudence  and 
justice.  That  you  should  first  concede  is  obvious,  5 
from  sound  and  rational  policy.  Concession  comes 
with  better  grace  and  more  salutary  effect  from 
superior  power.  It  reconciles  superiority  of  power 
with  the  feelings  of  men,  and  establishes  solid  con¬ 
fidence  on  the  foundations  of  affection  and  gratitude.  10 
So  thought  a  wise  poet  and  a  wise  man  in  political 
sagacity — the  friend  of  Mecaenas,  and  the  eulogist  of 
Augustus.  To  him,  the  adopted  son  and  successor 
of  the  first  Caesar — to  him,  the  master  of  the  world, 
he  wisely  urged  this  conduct  of  prudence  and  dignity  :  15 
‘‘  Tuque  prior  ^  tu  parce  j  projice  tela  manu," 

Every  motive,  therefore,  of  justice  and  of  policy,  of 
dignity  and  of  prudence,  urges  you  to  allay  the  fer¬ 
ment  in  America  by  a  removal  of  your  troops  from 
Boston,  by  a  repeal  of  your  acts  of  Parliament,  and  20 
by  demonstration  of  amicable  dispositions  toward 
yowr  colonies.  On  the  other  hand,  every  danger  and 
every  hazard  impend  to  deter  you  from  perseverance 
in  your  present  ruinous  measures.  Foreign  war 
hanging  over  your  heads  by  a  slight  and  brittle  25 
thread  ;  France  and  Spain  watching  your  conduct, 
and  waiting  for  the  maturity  of  your  errors,  with 
a  vigilant  eye  to  America  and  the  temper  of  your 
colonies,  more  than  to  their  own  concerns,  be  they 
what  they  may.  30 

To  conclude,  my  Lords,  if  the  ministers  thus  perse¬ 
vere  in  misadvising  and  misleading  the  King,  I  will 


ON  REMOVING  TROOPS  FROM  BOSTON. 


21 


not  say  that  they  can  alienate  the  affections  of  his 
subjects  from  his  crown,  but  I  will  affirm  that  they 
will  make  the  crown  not  worth  his  wearing.  I  will  not 
say  that  the  King  is  betrayed,  but  I  will  pronounce 
5  that  the  kingdom  is  undone.^ 

*  In  this  brief,  skilfully  worded  paragraph,  Lord  Chatham  did 
much,  suggesting  even  more  than  he  said  directly.  Saying  that  he 
will  not  say  certain  things,  he  brings  to  the  King’s  ear  what  are 
evidently  popular  charges  against  him,  and  hints  at  great  possible 
lo  dangers  for  the  King.  Both  of  the  statements  should  make  the 
King  apprehensive,  the  first,  that  he  may  lose  the  affection  of  his 
people ;  the  second,  that  they  may  come  to  regard  him  as  a  mere 
tool  of  his  ministers.  Lord  Chatham,  with  fine  irony,  apparently 
shrinks  from  two  bold  statements  only  to  make  two  others  less 
15  specific,  but  more  inclusive,  and  for  King  and  people  more  terri¬ 
fying.  Warning  the  people  of  the  great  dangers  of  the  time,  he 
yet  hints  approvingly  the  steadiness  of  their  loyalty  to  the  King, 
and  throwing  the  blame  for  existing  troubles  on  the  Ministry,  turns 
the  people  toward  the  King.  Threatening  the  King  with  great 
20  possible  dangers,  he  makes  him  feel  his  need  of  the  support  of 
the  people,  and  turns  him  away  from  the  Ministry,  who  alone 
are  responsible  for  existing  evils. 


Xor&  /IDansfielD. 

Born  1705.  Died  1793. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  CASE  OF  THE  CHAMBERLAIN  OF  LON- 

DON  AGAINST  ALLAN  EVANS. 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Lords  ^  February  4,  1767. 

[“  The  city  of  London  was  in  want  of  a  new  mansion  house 
for  the  Lord  Mayor,  and  resolved  to  build  one  on  a  scale  of  be¬ 
coming  magnificence.  But,  as  the  expense  would  be  great,  some 
ingenious  churchmen  devised  a  plan  for  extorting  a  large  part  of 
the  money  out  of  the  Dissenters,  who  had  for  a  number  of  years 
been  growing  in  business  and  property,  under  the  protection  of 
the  Toleration  Act.  The  mode  was  this.  A  by-law  of  the  city 
was  passed,  imposing  a  fine  of  ^i’booon  any  person  who  should  be 
elected  as  sheriff  and  decline  to  serve.  Some  wealthy  individual 
was  then  taken  from  the  dissenting  body,  and  by  a  concert  among 
the  initiated  was  chosen  to  the  office  of  sheriff.  Of  course  he  was 
not  expected  to  serve,  for  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts  rendered 
him  incapable.  He  was,  therefore,  compelled  to  decline  ;  and 
was  then  fined  under  a  by-law  framed  for  the  very  purpose 

of  extorting  this  money !  Numerous  appointments  were  thus  made, 
and  5,000  were  actually  paid  in  ;  until  it  became  a  matter  of 
mere  sport  to  “  roast  a  Dissenter,’'  and  bring  another  ;^6oo  into 
the  treasury  toward  the  expenses  of  the  mansion  house. 

“At  length  Allan  Evans,  a  man  of  spirit,  who  had  been  selected 
as  a  victim,  resolved  to  try  the  question.  He  refused  to  pay  the 
fine,  and  was  sued  in  the  Sheriff’s  Court.  Here  he  pleaded  his 
rights  under  the  Toleration  Act,  but  lost  his  cause.  He  appealed 
to  the  Court  of  Hustings,  where  the  decision  was  affirmed.  He 
then  appealed  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  where  judgment 
went  in  his  favor  ;  the  decisions  of  the  courts  below  being  unani¬ 
mously  reversed.  The  city  now  brought  a  writ  of  error  through 


22 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS. 


23 


their  Chamberlain,  and  carried  the  case  before  the  House  of  Lords. 
Here  the  subject  was  taken  up  by  Lord  Mansfield,  who  in  common 
with  all  the  judges  but  one  of  the  Court  of  the  King’s  Bench,  was 
of  opinion  that  Evans  was  protected  by  the  Toleration  Act,  and  ex¬ 
empted  from  the  obligation  to  act  as  sheriff.  These  views  he 
maintained  in  the  following  speech,  which  had  great  celebrity  at 
the  time,  and  is  spoken  of  by  Lord  Campbell  as  ‘  one  of  the  finest 
specimens  of  forensic  eloquence  to  be  found  in  our  books.’  The 
judgment  of  the  Court  of  the  King’s  Bench  was  affirmed  by  the 
House  of  Lords.” — Goodrich. 

My  Lords  :  As  I  made  the  motion  for  taking  the 
opinion  of  the  learned  judges,  and  proposed  the  ques¬ 
tion  your  Lordships  have  been  pleased  to  put  to  them, 
it  may  be  expected  that  I  should  make  some  farther 
5  motion,  in  consequence  of  the  opinions  they  have 
delivered.* 

In  moving  for  the  opinion  of  the  judges,  I  had  two 
views.  The  first  was,  that  the  House  might  have  the 
benefit  of  their  assistance  in  forming  a  right  judgment 

10  in  this  cause  now  before  us,  upon  this  writ  of  error. 
The  next  was,  that  the  question  being  fully  discussed, 
the  grounds  of  our  judgment,  together  with  their 

*  The  notes  marked  Goodrich  ”  are  reprinted  by  permission  of 
Messrs.  Harper  &  Brothers  from  Goodrich’s  “  Select  British  Elo- 

15  quence,”  1852. 

*  In  this  speech  a  reader  should  note  its  remarkable  compactness, 
brevity,  and  directness,  and  the  careful  exclusion,  until  the  main  ar¬ 
gument  is  concluded,  of  any  appeal  to  the  feelings.  Something  of 
this  compactness  comes  from  the  fact  that  Lord  Mansfield  spoke 

20  rather  as  a  judge  summing  up  a  case,  with  the  evidence  of  which 
his  hearers  were  familiar,  than  as  a  lawyer  who  must  show  the 
value  and  significance  of  the  evidence  which  he  uses  or  combats. 
As  the  origin  of  the  case,  and  its  condition  at  the  time  of  his  speech, 
were  known  to  all,  he  could  make  his  introduction  very  brief.  It 


24 


LORD  MANSFIELD. 


exceptions,  limitations,  and  restrictions,  might  be 
clearly  and  certainly  known,  as  a  rule  to  be  followed 
hereafter  in  all  future  cases  of  the  like  nature  ;  and 
this  determined  me  as  to  the  manner  of  wording  the 
question,  “  How  far  the  defendant  might,  in  the  pres-  5 
ent  case,  be  allowed  to  plead  his  disability  in  bar  of 
the  action  brought  against  him  ?’' 

The  question  thus  worded  shows  the  point  upon 
which  your  Lordships  thought  this  case  turned  ;  and 
the  answer  necessarily  fixes  a  criterion,  under  what  10 
circumstances,  and  by  what  persons,  such  a  disability 
may  be  pleaded  as  an  exemption  from  the  penalty 
inflicted  by  this  by-law,  upon  those  who. decline  taking 
upon  them  the  office  of  sheriff. 

In  every  view  in  which  I  have  been  able  to  consider  15 
this  matter,  I  think  this  action  cannot  be  supported. 

I.  If  they  rely  on  the  Corporation  Act ;  by  the 
literal  and  express  provision  of  that  act,  no  person 
can  be  elected  who  hath  not  within  a  year  taken  the 
sacrament  in  the  Church  of  England.  The  defendant  20 
hath  not  taken  the  sacrament  within  a  year  ;  he  is  not, 
therefore,  elected.  Here  they  fail. 

If  they  ground  it  on  the  general  design  of  the 

was  his  work  to  select  from  the  mass  of  charges  and  counter¬ 
charges,  with  the  evidence  pro  and  con  attaching  to  them,  the  25 
essential  ideas,  and  to  show  their  significance  clearly  to  his  hearers. 

By  a  brilliant  analysis  made  before  his  speech,  he  reduced  the 
case  to  a  simple  outline,  and  then  in  his  speech  devoted  himself  to 
making  this  outline  clear  and  convincing.  Relying  on  evidence  he 
knew  to  be  in  the  minds  of  his  hearers,  excluding  every  idea  30 
that  did  not  make  clearer  his  main  or  subordinate  propositions, 
wasting  not  a  word,  he  moved  with  neat  transitions  steadily  to  his 
goal. 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS. 


25 


Legislature  in  passing  the  Corporation  Act  ;  the  de¬ 
sign  was  to  exclude  Dissenters  from  office,  and  disable 
them  from  serving.  For,  in  those  times,  when  a  spirit 
of  intolerance  prevailed,  and  severe  measures  were 
5  pursued,  the  Dissenters  were  reputed  and  treated  as 
persons  ill-affected  and  dangerous  to  the  government. 
The  defendant,  therefore,  a  Dissenter,  and  in  the  eye 
of  this  law  a  person  dangerous  and  ill-affected,  is  ex¬ 
cluded  from  office,  and  disabled  from  serving.  Here 
10  they  fail. 

If  they  ground  the  action  on  their  own  by-law  ; 
that  by-law  was  professedly  made  to  procure  fit  and 
able  persons  to  serve  the  office,  and  the  defendant  is 
not  fit  and  able,  being  expressly  disabled  by  statute 
15  law.  Here,  too,  they  fail. 

If  they  ground  it  on  his  disability's  being  owing  to 
a  neglect  of  taking  the  sacrament  at  church,  when  he 
ought  to  have  done  it,  the  Toleration  Act  having 
freed  the  Dissenters  from  all  obligation  to  take  the 
20  sacrament  at  church,  the  defendant  is  guilty  of  no 
neglect — no  criminal  neglect.  Here,  therefore,  they 
fail. 

These  points,  my  Lords,  will  appear  clear  and  plain. 

H.  The  Corporation  Act,  pleaded  by  the  defendant 
25  as  rendering  him  ineligible  to  this  office,  and  incapable 
of  taking  it  upon  him,  was  most  certainly  intended  by 
the  Legislature  to  prohibit  the  persons  therein  de¬ 
scribed  being  elected  to  any  corporation  offices,  and 
to  disable  them  from  taking  such  offices  upon  them. 
30  The  act  had  two  parts,  first,  it  appointed  a  commis¬ 
sion  for  turning  out  all  that  were  at  that  time  in  office, 
who  would  not  comply  with  what  was  required  as 


26 


LORD  MANSFIELD, 


the  condition  of  their  continuance  therein,  and  even 
gave  a  power  to  turn  them  out,  though  they  should 
comply  ;  and  then  it  farther  enacted,  that,  from  the 
termination  of  that  commission,  no  person  hereafter, 
who  had  not  taken  the  sacrament  according  to  the  5 
rites  of  the  Church  of  England  within  one  year  pre¬ 
ceding  the  time  of  such  election,  should  be  placed, 
chosen,  or  elected  into  any  office  of,  or  belonging  to, 
the  government  of  any  corporation  ;  and  this  was 
done,  as  it  was  expressly  declared  in  the  preamble  to  10 
the  act,  in  order  to  perpetuate  the  succession  in  cor¬ 
porations  in  the  hands  of  persons  well-affected  to 
government  in  church  and  state. 

It  was  not  their  design  (as  hath  been  said)  “  to 
bring  such  persons  into  corporations  by  inducing  15 
them  to  take  the  sacrament  in  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land  ”  ;  the  Legislature  did  not  mean  to  tempt  per¬ 
sons  who  were  ill-affected  to  the  government  occa¬ 
sionally  to  conform,  ft  was  not,  I  say,  their  design 
to  bring  them  in.  They  could  not  trust  them,  lest  20 
they  should  use  the  power  of  their  offices  to  distress 
and  annoy  the  state.  And  the  reason  is  alleged  in 
the  act  itself.  It  was  because  there  were  evil 
spirits  ”  among  them;  and  they  were  afraid  of  evil 
spirits,  and  determined  to  keep  them  out.  They  25 
therefore  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  electors  to  choose 
such  persons,  and  out  of  their  power  to  serve  ;  and 
accordingly  prescribed  a  mark  or  character,  laid  down 
a  description  whereby  they  should  be  known  and  dis¬ 
tinguished  by  their  conduct  previous  to  such  an  elec-  30 
tion.  Instead  of  appointing  a  condition  of  their  serv¬ 
ing  the  office,  resulting,  from  their  future  conduct,  or 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS, 


27 


some  consequent  action  to  be  performed  by  them, 
they  declared  such  persons  incapable  of  being  chosen 
as  had*  not  taken  the  sacrament  in  the  Church  within 
a  year  before  such  election  ;  and,  without  this  mark 
5  of  their  affection  to  the  Church,  they  could  not  be  in 
office,  and  there  could  be  no  election.  But  as  the 
law  then  stood,  no  man  could  have  pleaded  this  dis¬ 
ability,  resulting  from  the  Corporation  Act,  in  bar  of 
such  an  action  as  is  now  brought  against  the  defend- 
10  ant,  because  this  disability  was  owing  to  what  was 
then,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  a  crime  ;  every  man  being 
required  by  the  canon  law  (received  and  confirmed  by 
the  statute  law)  to  take  the  sacrament  in  the  Church 
at  least  once  a  year.  The  law  would  not  then  permit 
15  a  man  to  say  that  he  had  not  taken  the  sacrament  in 
the  Church  of  England  ;  and  he  could  not  be  allowed 
to  plead  it  in  bar  of  any  action  brought  against  him. 

III.  But  the  case  is  quite  altered  since  the  Act  of 
Toleration.  .It  is  now  no  crime  for  a  man,  who  is 
20  within  the  description  of  that  act,  to  say  he  is  a  Dis¬ 
senter  ;  nor  is  it  any  crime  for  him  not  to  take  the 
sacrament  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of 
England  ;  nay,  the  crime  is,  if  he  does  it  contrary  to 
the  dictates  of  his  conscience. 

25  If  it  is  a  crime  not  to  take  the  sacrament  at  church, 
it  must  be  a  crime  by  some  law  ;  which  must  be  either 
common  or  statute  law,  the  canon  law  enforcing  it 
being  dependent  wholly  upon  the  statute  law.  Now 
the  statute  law  is  repealed  as  to  persons  capable  of 
30  pleading  [under  the  Toleration  Act]  that  they  are  so 
and  so  qualified  ;  and  therefore  the  canon  law  is  re¬ 
pealed  with  regard  to  those  persons. 


28 


LORD  MANSFIELD, 


If  it  is  a  crime  by  common  law,  it  must  be  so  either 
by  usage  or  principle.  But  there  is  no  usage  or  cus¬ 
tom,  independent  of  positive  law,  which  makes  non¬ 
conformity  a  crime.  The  eternal  principles  of  natural 
religion  are  part  of  the  common  law.  The  essential  5 
principles  of  revealed  religion  are  part  of  the  common 
law  ;  so  that  any  person  reviling,  subverting,  or  ridi¬ 
culing  them,  may  be  prosecuted  at  common  law.  But 
it  cannot  be  shown,  from  the  principles  of  natural  or 
revealed  religion,  that,  independent  of  positive  law,  10 
temporal  punishments  ought  to  be  inflicted  for  mere 
opinions  with  respect  to  particular  modes  of  worship. 

Persecution  for  a  sincere  though  erroneous  con¬ 
science  is  not  to  be  deduced  from  reason  or  the  fit¬ 
ness  of  things.  It  can  only  stand  upon  positive  law.  15 

IV.  It  has  been  said  (i)  That  “the  Toleration  Act 
only  amounts  to  an  exemption  of  the  Protestant  Dis¬ 
senters  from  the  penalties  of  certain  laws  therein  par¬ 
ticularly  mentioned,  and  to  nothing  more  ;  that  if  it 
had  been  intended  to  bear,  and  to  have  any  operation  20 
upon  the  Corporation  Act,  the  Corporation  Act  ought 
to  have  been  mentioned  therein  ;  and  there  ought  to 
have  been  some  enacting  clause,  exempting  Dissenters 
from  prosecution  in  consequence  of  this  act,  and 
enabling  them  to  plead  their  not  having  received  the  25 
sacrament  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  bar  of  such  action.”  But  this  is  much  too 
limited  and  narrow  a  conception  of  the  Toleration 
Act,  which  amounts  consequentially  to  a  great  deal 
more  than  this  ;  and  it  hath  consequentially  an  infer- 30 
ence  and  operation  upon  the  Corporation  Act  in 
particular.  The  Toleration  Act  renders  that  which 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS, 


29 


was  illegal  before^  now  legal.  The  Dissenters’  way  of 
worship  is  permitted  and  allowed  by  this  act.  It  is 
not  only  exempted  from  punishment,  but  rendered 
innocent  and  lawful.  It  is  established  ;  it  is  put 
5  under  the  protection,  and  is  not  merely  under  the 
connivance  of  the  law.  In  case  those  who  are  ap¬ 
pointed  by  law  to  register  dissenting  places  of  wor¬ 
ship  refuse  on  any  pretense  to  do  it,  we  must,  upon 
application,  send  a  mandamus  to  compel  them. 

10  Now  there  cannot  be  a  plainer  position  than  that 
the  law  protects  nothing  in  that  very  respect  in  which 
it  is  (in  the  eye  of  the  law)  at  the  same  time  a  crime. 
Dissenters,  within  the  description  of  the  Toleration 
Act,  are  restored  to  a  legal  consideration  and  ca- 
15  pacity  ;  and  a  hundred  consequences  will  from  thence 
follow,  which  are  not  mentioned  in  the  act.  For  in¬ 
stance,  previous  to  the  Toleration  Act,  it  was  unlaw¬ 
ful  to  devise  any  legacy  for  the  support  of  dissenting 
congregations,  or  for  the  benefit  of  dissenting  minis- 
2oters  ;  for  the  law  knew  no  such  assemblies,  and  no 
such. persons  ;  and  such  a  devise  was  absolutely  void, 
being  left  to  what  the  law  called  superstitious  pur¬ 
poses.  But  will  it  be  said  in  any  court  in  England 
that  such  a  devise  is  not  a  good  and  valid  one  now  ? 
25  And  yet  there  is  nothing  said  of  this  in  the  Toleration 
Act.  By  this  act  the  Dissenters  are  freed,  not  only 
from  the  pains  and  penalties  of  the  laws  therein  par¬ 
ticularly  specified,  but  from  all  ecclesiastical  censures 
and  from  all  penalty  and  punishment  whatsoever,  on 
30  account  of  their  nonconformity,  which  is  allowed  and 
protected  by  this  act,  and  is,  therefore,  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  no  longer  a  crime.  Now,  if  the  defendant 


30  LORD  MANSFIELD, 

may  say  he  is  a  Dissenter  ;  if  the  law  doth  not  stop 
his  mouth  ;  if  he  may  declare  that  he  hath  not  taken 
the  sacrament  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of 
England,  without  being  considered  as  criminal  ;  if,  I 
say,  his  mouth  is  not  stopped  by  the  law,  he  may  then  5 
plead  his  not  having  taken  the  sacrament  according 
to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  bar  of  this 
action.  It  is  such  a  disability  as  doth  not  leave  him 
liable  to  any  action,  or  to  any  penalty  whatsoever. 

(2)  It  is  indeed  said  to  be  “  a  maxim  in  law,  that  a  10 
man  shall  not^  be  allowed  to  disable  himself.”  But, 
when  this  maxim  is  applied  to  the  present  case,  it  is 
laid  down  in  too  large  a  sense.  When  it  is  extended 
to  comprehend  a  legal  disability,  it  is  taken  in  too 
great  a  latitude.  What  !  Shall  not  a  man  be  allowed  15 
to  plead  that  he  is  not  fit  and  able  These  words 
are  inserted  in  the  by-law,  as  the  ground  of  making  it  ; 
and  in  the  plaintiff’s  declaration,  as  the  ground  of  his 
action  against  the  defendant.  It  is  alleged  that  the 
defendant  was  fit  and  able,  and  that  he  refused  to  20 
serve,  not  having  a  reasonable  excuse.  It  is  certain, 
and  it  is  hereby  in  effect  admitted,  that  if  he  is  not 
fit  and  able,  and  that  if  he  hath  a  reasonable  excuse, 
he  may  plead  it  in  bar  of  this  action.  Surely  he  might 
plead  that  he  was  not  worth  fifteen  thousand  pounds,  25 
provided  that  was  really  the  case,  as  a  circumstance 
that  would  render  him  not  fit  and  able.  And  if  the 
law  allows  him  to  say  that  he  hath  not  taken  the  sac¬ 
rament  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land,  being  within  the  description  of  the  Toleration  30 
Act,  he  may  plead  that  likewise  to  show  that  he  is  not 
fit  and  able.  It  is  a  reasonable,  it  is  a  lawful  excuse. 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS. 


31 


My  Lords,  the  meaning  of  this  maxim,  ‘‘  that  a  man 
shall  not  disable  himself,’*  is  solely  this  :  that  a  man 
shall  not  disable  himself  by  his  own  wilful  crime  ; 
and  such  a  disability  the  law  will  not  allow  him  to 
5  plead.  If  a  man  contracts  to  sell  an  estate  to  any 
person  upon  certain  terms  at  such  a  time,  and  in  the 
meantime  he  sells  it  to  another,  he  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  say,  Sir,  I  cannot  fulfill  my  contract ;  it 
is  out  of  my  power  ;  I  have  sold  my  estate  to  an- 
10  other.”  Such  a  plea  would  be  no  bar  to  an  action, 
because  the  act  of  his  selling  it  to  another  is  the  very 
breach  of  contract.  So,  likewise,  a  man  who  hath 
promised  marriage  to  one  lady,  and  afterward  marries 
another,  cannot  plead  in  bar  of  a  prosecution  from 
15  the  first  lady  that  he  is  already  married,  because  his 
marrying  the  second  lady  is  the  very  breach  of  prom¬ 
ise  to  the  first.  A  man  shall  not  be  allowed  to  plead 
that  he  was  drunk  in  bar  of  a  criminal  prosecution, 
though  perhaps  he  was  at  the  time  as  incapable  of 
20  the  exercise  of  reason  as  if  he  had  been  insane,  be¬ 
cause  his  drunkenness  was  itself  a  crime.  He  shall 
not  be  allowed  to  excuse  one  crime  by  another.  The 
Roman  soldier,  who  cut  off  his  thumbs,  was  not  suf¬ 
fered  to  plead  his  disability  for  the  service  to  procure 
25  his  dismission  with  impunity,  because  his  incapacity 
was  designedly  brought  on  him  by  his  own  wilful 
fault.*  And  I  am  glad  to  observe  so  good  an  agree- 

^  This  paragraph  shows  well  the  great  value  in  argument  of  con¬ 
crete  illustration.  By  means  of  his  illustrations  Lord  Mansfield  not 
30  only  adds  life  and  interest  to  his  speech,  but  also  makes  perfectly 
clear  a  distinction  that,  when  first  stated,  seems  a  little  subtle,  and 
might,  without  the  illustration,  remain  for  most  hearers  a  little  vague. 


32 


LORD  MANSFIELD. 


merit  among  the  judges  upon  this  point,  who  have 
stated  it  with  great  precision  and  clearness. 

When  it  was  said,  therefore,  that  a  man  cannot 
plead  his  crime  in  excuse  for  not  doing  what  he  is  by 
law  required  to  do,”  it  only  amounts  to  this,  that  he  5 
cannot  plead  in  excuse  what,  when  pleaded,  is  no 
excuse  ;  but  there  is  not  in  this  the  shadow  of  an  ob¬ 
jection  to  his  pleading  what  is  an  excuse — pleading  a 
legal  disqualification.  If  he  is  nominated  to  be  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  he  may  say,  I  cannot  be  a  jus- 10 
tice  of  the  peace,  foV  I  have  not  a  hundred  pounds  a 
year.”  In  like  manner,  a  Dissenter  may  plead,  I 
have  not  qualified,  and  I  cannot  qualify,  and  am  not 
obliged  to  qualify  ;  and  you  have  no  right  to  fine  me 
for  not  serving.”  15 

(3)  It  hath  been  said  that  the  King  hath  a  right 

to  the  service  of  all  his  subjects.”  And  this  assertion 
is  very  true,  provided  it  be  properly  qualified.  But 
surely,  against  the  operation  of  this  general  right  in 
particular  cases,  a  man  may  plead  a  natural  or  civil  20 
disability.  May  not  a  man  plead  that  he  was  upon 
the  high  seas  ?  May  not  idiocy  or  lunacy  be  pleaded, 
which  are  natural  disabilities  ;  or  a  judgment  of  a 
court  of  law,  and  much  more  a  judgment  of  Parlia¬ 
ment,  which  are  civil  disabilities  ?  25 

(4)  It  hath  been  said  to  be  a  maxim  that  no  man 
can  plead  his  being  a  lunatic  to  avoid  a  deed  executed, 
or  excuse  an  act  done,  at  that  time,  because,  it  is  said, 

“  if  he  was  a  lunatic,  he  could  not  remember  any  action 
he  did  during  the  period  of  his  insanity  ”  ;  and  this  was  30 
doctrine  formerly  laid  down  by  some  judges.  But  I 
-am  glad  to  find  that  of  late  it  hath  been,  generally 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS. 


33 


exploded.  For  the  reason  assigned  for  it  is,  in  my 
opinion,  wholly  insufficient  to  support  it ;  because, 
though  he  could  not  remember  what  passed  during 
his  insanity,  yet  he  might  justly  say,  if  he  ever 
5  executed  such  a  deed,  or  did  such  an  action,  it  must 
have  been  during  his  confinement  or  lunacy,  for  he 
did  not  do  it  either  before  or  since  that  time. 

As  to  the  case  in  which  a  man’s  plea  of  insanity  was 
actually  set  aside,  it  was  nothing  more  than  this  :  it 
lo  was  when  they  pleaded  ore  tenus  [or  verbally]  ;  the 
man  pleaded  that  he  was  at  the  time  out  of  his  senses. 
It  was  replied.  How  do  you  know  that  you  were  out  of 
your  senses  ?  No  man  that  is  so,  knows  himself  to  be 
so.  And  accordingly  his  plea  was,  upon  this  quibble, 
15  set  aside  ;  not  because  it  was  not  a  valid  one,  if  he  was 
out  of  his  senses,  but  because  they  concluded  he  was 
not  out  of  his  senses.  If  he  had  alleged  that  he  was 
at  that  time  confined,  being  apprehended  to  be  out  of 
his  senses,  no  advantage  could  have  been  taken  of  his 
20  manner  of  expressing  himself,  and  his  plea  must  have 
been  allowed  to  be  good. 

(5)  As  to  Larwood’s  case,  he  was  not  allowed  the 
benefit  of  the  Toleration  Act,  because  he  did  not  plead 
it.  If  he  had  insisted  on  his  right  to  the  benefit  of  it  in 
25  his  plea,  the  judgment  must  have  been  different.  His 
inserting  it  in  his  replication  was  not  allowed,  not 
because  it  was  not  an  allegation  that  would  have 
excused  him  if  it  had  been  originally  taken  notice  of  in 
his  plea,  but  because  its  being  not  mentioned  till  after- 
30  ward  was  a  departure  from  his  plea. 

In  the  case  of  the  Mayor  of  Guilford,  the  Toleration 
Act  was  pleaded.  The  plea  was  allowed  good,  the 


34 


LORD  MANSFIELD, 


disability  being  esteemed  a  lawful  one  ;  and  the  judg¬ 
ment  was  right. 

And  here  the  defendant  hath  likewise  insisted  on 
his  right  to  the  benefit  of  the  Toleration  Act.  In  his 
plea  he  saith  he  is  bona  fide  a  Dissenter,  within  the  c 
description  of  the  Toleration  Act ;  that  he  hath  taken 
the  oaths,  and  subscribed  the  declaration  required  by 
that  act,  to  show  that  he  is  not  a  popish  recusant  ; 
that  he  hath  never  received  the  sacrament  according 
to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  that  he  lo 
cannot  in  conscience  do  it  ;  and  that  for  more  than 
fifty  years  past  he  hath  not  been  present  at  church  at 
the  celebration  of  the  established  worship,  but  hath 
constantly  received  the  sacrament  and  attended  divine 
service  among  the  Protestant  Dissenters.  These  facts  15 
are  not  denied  by  the  plaintiff,  though  they  might 
easily  have-  been  traversed  ;  and  it  was  incumbent 
upon  them  to  have  done  it,  if  they  had  not  known 
they  should  certainly  fail  in  it.  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  therefore,  that  the  defendant  is  a  Dissenter — 20 
an  honest,  conscientious  Dissenter  ;  and  no  conscien¬ 
tious  Dissenter  can  take  the  sacrament  at  church. 
The  defendant  saith  he  cannot  do  it,  and  he  is  not 
obliged  to  do  it.  And  as  this  is  the  case,  as  the  law 
allows  him  to  say  this,  as  it  hath  not  stopped  his  mouth,  25 
the  plea  which  he  makes  is  a  lawful  plea,  his  disability 
being  through  no  crime  or  fault  of  his  own.  I  say, 
he  is  disabled  by  act  of  Parliament,  without  the  con¬ 
currence  or  intervention  of  any  fault  or  crime  of  his 
own;  and,  therefore,  he  may  plead  this  disability  in  30 
bar  of  the  present  action. 

(6)  The  case  cf  “  atheists  and  infidels  "  is  out  of 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS, 


35 


the  present  question  ;  they  come  not  within  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  Toleration  Act.  And  this  is  the  sole  point 
to  be  inquired  into  in  all  cases  of  the  like  nature  with 
that  of  the  defendant,  who  here  pleads  the  Toleration 
5  Act.  Is  the  man  bona  fide  a  Dissenter  within  the 
description  of  that  act  ?  If  not,  he  cannot  plead  his 
disability  in  consequence  of  his  not  having  taken  the 
sacrament  in  the  Church  of  England.  If  he  is,  he 
may  lawfully  and  with  effect  plead  it  in  bar  of  such 
loan  action;  and  the  question  on  which  this  distinction 
is  grounded  must  be  tried  by  a  jury. 

(7)  It  hath  been  said  that,  this  being  a  matter 
between  God  and  a  man’s  own  conscience,  it  cannot 
come  under  the  cognizance  of  a  jury.”  But  certainly 
15  it  may  ;  and,  though  God  alone  is  the  absolute  judge 
of  a  man’^s  religious  profession  and  of  his  conscience, 
yet  there  are  some  marks  even  of  sincerity,  among 
which  there  is  none  more  certain  than  consistency. 
Surely  a  man’s  sincerity  may  be  judged  of  by  overt 
20  acts.  It  is  a  just  and  excellent  maxim,  which  will 
hold  good  in  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  by  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  Do  they,  I  do  not  say 
go  to  meeting  now  and  then,  but  do  they  frequent  the 
meeting-house  ?  Do  they  join  generally  and  statedly 
25  in  divine  worship  with  dissenting  congregations? 
Whether  they  do  or  not,  may  be  ascertained  by  their 
neighbors,  and  by  those  who  frequent  the  same 
places  of  worship.  In  case  a  man  hath  occasionally 
conformed  for  the  sake  of  places  of  trust  and 
30  profit ;  in  that  case,  I  imagine,  a  jury  would  not 
hesitate  in  their  verdict.  If  a  man  then  alleges 
he  is  a  Dissenter,  and  claims  the  protection  and  the 


3^ 


LORD  MANSFIELD. 


advantages  of  the  Toleration  Act,  a  jury  may  justly 
find  that  he  is  not  a  Dissenter  within  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  Toleration  Act,  so  far  as  to  render  his  dis¬ 
ability  a  lawful  one.  If  he  takes  the  sacrament  for 
his  interest,  the  jury  may  fairly  conclude  that  this  5 
scruple  of  conscience  is  a  false  pretense  when  set  up 
to  avoid  a  burden. 

The  defendant  in  the  present  case  pleads  that  he  is 
a  Dissenter  within  the  description  of  the  Toleration 
Act  ;  that  he  hath  not  taken  the  sacrament  in  the  10 
Church  of  England  within  one  year  preceding  the  time 
of  his  supposed  election,  nor  ever  in  his  whole  life  ; 
and  that  he  cannot  in  conscience  do  it. 

Conscience  is  not  controllable  by  human  laws,  nor 
amenable  to  human  tribunals.  Persecution,  or  attempts  15 
to  force  conscience,  will  never  produce  conviction, 
and  are  only  calculated  to  make  hypocrites  or  martyrs. 

V.  My  Lords,  there  never  was  a  single  instance, 
from  the  Saxon  times  down  to  our  own,  in  which  a 
man  was  ever  punished  for  erroneous  opinions  con- 20 
cerning  rites  or  modes  of  worship,  but  upon  some 
positive  law.  The  common  law  of  England,  which 
is  only  common  reason  or  usage,  knows  of  no  pros¬ 
ecution  for  mere  opinions.  For  atheism,  blasphemy, 
and  reviling  the  Christian  religion,  there  have  been  25 
instances  of  persons  prosecuted  and  punished  upon 

the  common  law.  But  bare  non-conformity  is  no  sin 

• 

by  the  common  law ;  and  all  positive  laws  inflicting 
any  pains  or  penalties  for  non-conformity  to  the 
established  rites  and  modes,  are  repealed  by  the  Act  30 
of  Toleration,  and  Dissenters  are  thereby  exempted 
from  all  ecclesiastical  censures. 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS, 


37 


What  bloodshed  and  confusion  have  been  oc- 
casioned,  from  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Fourth,  when 
the  first  penal  statutes  were  enacted,  down  to  the 
revolution  in  this  kingdom,  by  laws  made  to  force 
5  conscience  There  is  nothing,  certainly,  more 
unreasonable,  more  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of 
human  nature,  more  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  pre¬ 
cepts  of  the  Christian  religion,  more  iniquitous  and 
unjust,  more  impolitic,  than  persecution.  It  is  against 
10  natural  religion,  revealed  religion,  and  sound  policy. 

^  Throughout  the  preceding  part  of  the  speech  Lord  Mansfield 
has  appealed  directly  only  to  the  common-sense  and  the  intellect 
of  his  hearers.  Indirectly,  of  course,  his  air  of  impartiality  and 
sincerity  has  been  a  persuasive  appeal.  Here  for  the  first  time  he 
15  directly  appeals,  and  subtly,  to  the  feelings  of  his  hearers.  He 
shames  them  by  suggesting  that  if  they  approve  of  the  course  of 
the  plaintiff,  they  will  out-Jesuit  their  loathed  foes,  the  Jesuits. 
To  say  this  directly  might  arouse  anger,  and  so  divert  attention  to 
Lord  Mansfield  from  the  idea  he  wishes  to  enforce.  Therefore, 
20  he  states  his  analogy  so  deftly  that  the  hearer  chiefly  applies  the 
words,  and  most  of  the  responsibility  for  the  shame  of  the  com¬ 
parison  falls  on  him. 

In  the  next  paragraph  Lord  Mansfield  first  phrases  a  suspicion 
that  for  some  time  his  words  have  fostered  in  his  hearers’  minds. 
25  If  early  in  his  speech  he  had  denounced  the  persecutors  of  Evans 
as  conspirators,  he  would  have  missed  the  impartial  air  of  his 
speech.  Instead,  as  twisting  and  turning  the  case,  he  shows 
a  hearer  that  from  every  point  of  view  the  plaintiff  is  wrong  and 
unjust,  he  develops  more  and  more  a  feeling  that  some  evil  plan 
30  must  be  back  of  injustice  so  evident.  This  unstated  suspicion  he 
strengthens  when  he  makes  the  reader  see  the  J esuitical  nature  of  the 
attempt  ;  and  finally,  when  the  hearer  himself  is  about  to  break  out 
with  his  suspicion,  phrases  it  for  him,  supporting  his  accusation  by 
references  to  the  evidence  produced  in  the  case,  and  by  an  analogy. 
35  Then,  with  a  swif^’  summary  of  the  whole  plea,  he  closes. 


38 


LORD  MANSFIELD. 


Sad  experience  and  a  large  mind  taught  that  great 
man,  the  President  De  Thou,  this  doctrine.  Let  any 
man  read  the  many  admirable  things  which,  though 
a  Papist,  he  hath  dared  to  advance  upon  the  subject, 
in  the  dedication  of  his  History  to  Harry  the  Fourth  5 
of  France,  which  I  never  read  without  rapture,  and  he 
will  be  fully  convinced,  not  only  how  cruel,  but  how  im¬ 
politic  it  is  to  prosecute  for  religious  opinions.  I  am 
sorry  that  of  late  his  countrymen  have  begun  to  open 
their  eyes,  see  their  error,  and  adopt  his  sentiments.  10 
I  should  not  have  broken  my  heart  (I  hope  I  may  say 
it  without  breach  of  Christian  charity)  if  PTance  had 
continued  to  cherish  the  Jesuits  and  to  persecute  the 
Huguenots. 

There  was  no  occasion  to  revoke  the  Edict  of  15 
Nantes.  The  Jesuits  needed  only  to  have  advised  a 
plan  similar  to  what  is  contended  for  in  the  present 
case.  Make  a  law  to  7'ender  them  incapable  of  office, 
jjiake  another  to  punish  them  for  not  serving.  If  they 
accept,  punish  them  (for  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  20 
that  the  defendant,  in  the  cause  before  your  1-ordships, 
is  prosecutable  for  taking  the  office  upon  him) — if 
they  accept,  punish  them  ;  if  they  refuse,  punish  them. 

If  they  say  yes,  punish  them  ;  if  they  say  no,  punish 
them.  My  Lords,  this  is  a  most  exquisite  dilemma,  25 
from  which  there  is  no  escaping.  It  is  a  trap  a  mar 
cannot  get  out  of  ;  it  is  as  bad  persecution  as  that  of 
Procrustes.  If  they  are  too  short,  stretch  them  ;  if 
they  are  too  long,  lop  them.  Small  would  have  been 
their  consolation  to  have  been  gravely  told,  The  30 
Edict  of  Nantes  is  kept  inviolable.  You  have  the  full 
benefit  of  that  act  of  toleration  ;  you  may  take  the 


THE  CASE  OF  EVANS,  , 


39 


sacrament  in  your  own  way  with  impunity  ;  you  are 
not  compelled  to  go  to  mass.”  Were  this  case  but 
told  in  the  city  of  London,  as  of  a  proceeding  in 
France,  how  they  would  exclaim  against  the  Jesuitical 
5  distinction  !  And  yet,  in  truth,  it  comes  from  them¬ 
selves.  The  Jesuits  never  thought  of  it.  When  they 
meant  to  persecute  by  their  act  of  toleration,  the  Edict 
of  Nantes  was  repealed. 

This  by-law,  by  which  the  Dissenters  are  to  be 
lo  reduced  to  this  wretched  dilemma,  is  a  by-law  of  the 
city,  a  local  corporation,  contrary  to  an  act  of  Parlia¬ 
ment,  which  is  the  law  of  the  land  ;  a  modern  by-law 
of  a  very  modern  date,  made  long  since  the  Corpora¬ 
tion  Act,  long  since  the  Toleration  Act,  in  the  face  of 
15  them,  for  they  knew  these  laws  were  in  being.  It  was 
made  in  some  year  in  the  reign  of  the  late  King — I 
forget  which  ;  but  it  was  made  about  the  time  of 
building  the  mansion  house  !  Now,  if  it  could  be  sup¬ 
posed  the  city  have  a  power  of  making  such  a  by-law, 
20  it  would  entirely  subvert  the  Toleration  Act,  the 
design  of  which  was  to  exempt  the  Dissenters  from  all 
penalties  ;  for  by  such  a  by-law  they  have  it  in  their 
power  to  make  every  Dissenter  pay  a  fine  of  six  hun¬ 
dred  pounds,  or  any  sum  they  please,  for  it  amounts 
25  to  that. 

The  professed  design  of  making  this  by-law  was  to 
get  fit  and  able  persons  to  serve  the  office  ;  and  the 
plaintiff  sets  forth  in  his  declaration,  that  if  the 
Dissenters  are  excluded,  they  shall  want  fit  and  able 
30  persons  to  serve  the  office.  But,  were  I  to  deliver  my 
own  suspicion,  it  would  be,  that  they  did  not  so  much 
wish  for  their  services  as  their  fines.  Dissenters  have 


40 


LORD  MANSFIELD. 


been  appointed  to  this  office,  one  who  was  blind, 
another  who  was  bed-ridden  ;  not,  I  suppose,  on 
account  of  their  being  fit  and  able  to  serve  the  office. 
No  :  they  were  disabled  both  by  nature  and  by  law. 

We  had  a  case  lately  in  the  courts  below,  of  a  person  5 
chosen  mayor  of  a  corporation  while  he  was  beyond 
seas  with  his  ]\[ajesty's  troops  in  America,  and  they 
knew  him  to  be  so.  Did  they  want  him  to  serve  the 
office?  No;  it  was  impossible.  But  they  had  a  mind 
to  continue  the  former  mayor  a  year  longer,  and  to  10 
have  a  pretense  for  setting  aside  him  who  was  now 
chosen,  on  all  future  occasions,  as  having  been  elected 
before. 

In  the  case  before  your  Lordships,  the  defendant 
was  by  law  incapable  at  the  time  of  his  pretended  15 
election  ;  and  it  is  my  firm  persuasion  that  he  was 
chosen  because  he  was  incapable.  If  he  had  been 
capable,  he  had  not  been  chosen,  for  they  did  not 
want  him  to  serve  the  office.  They  chose  him  because, 
without  a  breach  of  the  law,  and  a  usurpation  on  the  20 
Crown,  he  could  not  serve  the  office.  They  chose 
him,  that  he  might  fall  under  the  penalty  of  their  by¬ 
law,  made  to  serve  a  particular  purpose  ;  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  which,  and  to  avoid  the  fine  thereby  imposed, 
he  hath  pleaded  a  legal  disability,  grounded  on  two  25 
acts  of  Parliament.  As  I  am  of  opinion  that  his  plea 
is  good,  I  conclude  with  moving  your  Lordships, 

‘‘That  the  judgment  be  affirmed.” 


Junius. 

LETTER  TO  THE  PRINTER  OF  THE  PUBLIC 

ADVERTISER.’’ 

January  21,  1769. 

At  the  close  of  1767  Lord  Chatham's  cabinet  had  fallen  to 
pieces,  and  the  Duke  of  Grafton  became  minister.  The  Duke 
immediately  endeavored  to  strengthen  himself  on  every  side. 
He  yielded  to  the  wishes  of  the  King  by  making  Lord  North 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  and  by  raising  Mr.  Jenkinson,  the 
organ  of  Lord  Bute,  to  higher  office  and  influence.  Thus  he  gave 
a  decided  ascendency  to  the  Tories.  On  the  other  hand,  he  en¬ 
deavored  to  conciliate  Lord  Rockingham  and  the  Duke  of  Bedted 
by  very  liberal  proposals.  But  these  gentlemen  differing  as  totne 
lead  of  the  House,  the  Bedford  interest  prevailed  ;  Lord  Wey¬ 
mouth,  a  member  of  that  family,  was  made  Secretary  of  the  Home 
Department ;  while  Lord  Rockingham  was  sent  back  to  the  ranks 
of  Opposition  under  a  sense  of  wrong  and  insult.  Six  months, 
down  almost  to  the  middle  of  1768,  were  spent  in  these  negoti¬ 
ations  and  arrangements. 

“  These  things  wrought  powerfully  on  the  mind  of  Junius,  who 
was  a  Grenville  or  Rockingham  Whig.  But  in  addition  to  this, 
he  had  strong  private  animosities.  He  not  only  saw  with  alarm 
and  abhorrence  the  triumph  of  Tory  principles,  but  he  cherished 
the  keenest  personal  resentment  toward  the  King  and  most  of  his 
ministers.  Those,  especially,  who  had  deserted  their  former 
Whig  associates,  he  regarded  as  traitors  to  the  cause  of  liberty. 
He  therefore  now  determined  to  give  full  scope  to  his  feelings, 
and  to  take  up  a  system  of  attack  far  more  galling  to  his  oppo¬ 
nents  than  had  ever  yet  been  adopted.  One  thing  was  favorable  to 
such  a  design.  Parliament-  was  to  expire  within  a  few  months  ; 
and  every  blow  now  struck  would  give  double  alarm  and  distress 
to  the  government,  while  it  served  also  to  inflame  the  minds  of  the 


41 


42 


JUNIUS, 


people,  and  rouse  them  to  a  more  determined  resistance  in  the 
approaching  elections.  Accordingly,  at  the  close  of  the  Christ¬ 
mas  holidays,  when  the  business  of  the  session  really  commences, 
he  addressed  his  first  letter  to  the  printer  of  the  Public  Advertiser^ 
under  date  of  January  2i,  1769.”  In  this  letter  “  Junius,  for  the 
first  time,  broke  through  the  barriers  thrown  around  the  monarch 
by  the  maxim,  *  the  King  can  do  no  wrong.’  He  assailed  him  like 
any  other  man,  though  in  more  courtly  and  guarded  language. 

He  attacked  the  ministry  in  more  direct  terms,”  saying,  “  ‘  It 
is  not  a  casual  concurrence  of  calamitous  circumstances — it  is  the 
pernicious  hand  of  government  alone,  that  can  make  a  whole  peo¬ 
ple  desperate.’  The  attention  of  the  public  was  strongly  arrested. 
The  p02t  Gray,  in  his  correspondence,  speaks  of  the  absoibing 
power  of  this  letter  over  his  mind,  when  he  took  it  up  casually 
for  the  first  time  at  a  country  inn,  where  he  had  stopped  for 
refreshment  on  a  journey.  He  was  unable  to  lay  it  down,  or 
even  to  think  of  the  food  before  him,  until  he  had  read  it  over 
and  over  again  with  the  most  painful  interest.  The  same  pro¬ 
found  sensation  was  awakened  in  the  higher  political  circles 
throughout  the  kingdom.” — Goodrich.^ 

This  letter,  though  not  the  first  that  appeared  over  the  signa¬ 
ture  “  Junius,”  is  the  first  of  the  collection  known  as  the  “Junius 
Letters.”  These  came  out  at  intervals  from  1769  to  1772,  when 
“Junius”  ceased  to  write.  More  than  fifty  persons  have  been 
suggested  for  the  author  of  the  “  Junius  I^etters.”  Popularly, 

Sir  Philip  Francis  (born  1740,  died  1818,)  has  been  supposed  to 
be  the  author  of  them.  His  authorship,  however,  has  not  been 
conclusively  proved. 

Sir  :  The  submission  of  a  free  people  to  the  execu¬ 
tive  authority  of  government  is  no  more  than  a  com¬ 
pliance  with  laws  which  they  themselves  have  enacted.* 

’  Junius,  writing  for  a  public  already  much  disturbed  by  the 
condition  of  the  government,  could  do  away  with  any  elaborate  ^ 
introduction.  To  catch  the  reader’s  attention  must  be  his  aim, 
and  this  he  accomplished  by  beginning  with  a  sentence  that  at  a 
time  of  political  rmeasiness  and  distrust  nihst  arrest  a  reader’s 


FIRST  LETTER. 


43 


While  the  national  honor  is  firmly  maintained  abroad, 
and  while  justice  is  impartially  administered  at  home, 
the  obedience  of  the  subject  will  be  voluntary,  cheer¬ 
ful,  and  I  might  say,  almost  unlimited.  A  generous 
5  nation  is  grateful  even  for  the  preservation  of  its 
rights,  and  willingly  extends  the  respect  due  to  the 
office  of  a  good  prince  into  an  affection  for  his  per¬ 
son.  Loyalty,  in  the  heart  and  understanding  of  an 
Englishman,  is  a  rational  attachment  to  the  guardian 
10  of  the  laws.  Prejudices  and  passion  have  sometimes 
carried  it  to  a  criminal  length  ;  and,  whatever  for¬ 
eigners  may  imagine,  we  know  that  Englishmen  have 
erred  as  much  in  a  mistaken  zeal  for  particular 
persons  and  families,  as  they  ever  did  in  defense  of 
15  what  they  thought  most  dear  and  interesting  to  them¬ 
selves. 

eye.  Sure  that  the  public,  which  had  eagerly  been  watching  state 
affairs,  would  understand  any  references  to  men  or  events  of  the 
years  just  preceding  1761,  Junius  did  not,  throughout  his  speech, 
20  trouble  to  bring  forward  evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  references  and 
allusions,  but  treats  them  as  matters  the  details  of  which  are  of 
common  report  and  belief.  His  method,  throughout  the  letter,  as 
the  many  notes  of  explanation  an  editor  to-day  finds  necessary 
suggest,  was  to  leave  a  good  deal  unsaid,  letting  the  reader  fill  out 
25  his  allusions,  apply  his  words,  with  the  aid  of  the  details  in  his 
own  mind.  Nowhere  is  this  better  shown  than  in  his  reference 
to  the  Wilkes  case  and  Lord  Mansfield.  Knowing  that  the 
details  of  this  case  were  in  every  reader’s  mind,  he  avoided  a 
statement  of  it  that  might  involve  him  in  controversy,  merely 
30  hinting  an  application  of  it,  which  a  reader  promptly  makes..  This 
method  makes  a  reader  partly  responsible  for  the  daring  conclu¬ 
sion  to  which  Junius  wished  to  lead  him,  makes  him  trust  its 
truth  more  because  he  has  not  been  forced  to  it,  but  has  come  to  it 
himself. 


f 


44 


JUNIUS, 


It  naturally  fills  us  with  resentment  to  see  such  a 
temper  insulted  and  abused.^  In  reading  the  history 
of  a  free  people,  whose  rights  have  been  invaded, 
we  are  interested  in  their  cause.  Our  own  feelings 
tell  us  how  long  they  ought  to  have  submitted,  and  at  5 
what  moment  it  would  have  been  treachery  to  them¬ 
selves  not  to  have  resisted.  How  much  warmer  will 
be  our  resentment,  if  experience  should  bring  the  fatal 
example  home  to  ourselves  ! 

The  situation  of  this  country  is  alarming  enough  to  10 
rouse  the  attention  of  every  man  who  pretends  to  a 
concern  for  the  public  welfare.  Appearances  justify 
suspicion  ;  and  when  the  safety  of  a  nation  is  at  stake, 
suspicion  is  a  just  ground  of  inquiry.  Let  us  enter 
into  it  with  candor  and  decency.  Respect  is  due  to  15 
the  station  of  ministers  ;  and  if  a  resolution  must  at 

^  “  We  have  here  the  starting  point  of  the  exordium,  as  it  lay 
originally  in  the  mind  of  Junius,  viz.,  that  the  English  nation  was 
insulted  and  abused’  by  the  King  and  ministers.  But  this  was 
too  strong  a  statement  to  be  brought  out  abruptly.  Junius  there-  20 
fore  went  back,  and  prepared  the  way  by  showing  in  successive 
sentences,  (r)  Why  a  free  people  obey  the  laws — ‘  because  they 
«  have  themselves  enacted  them.'  (2)  That  this  obedience  is  ordi¬ 
narily  cheerful,  and  almost  unlimited.  (3)  That  such  obedience 
to  the  guardian  of  the  laws  naturally  leads  to  a  strong  affection  for  25 
his  person.  (4)  That  this  affection  (as  shown  in  their  history) 
had  often  been  excessive  among  the  English,  who  were,  in  fact, 
peculiarly  liable  to  a  ‘  mistaken  zeal  for  particular  persons  and 
families.’  Hence  they  were' equally  liable  (this  is  not  said,  but 
implied)  to  have  their  loyalty  imposed  upon  ;  and  therefore  the  30 
feeling  then  so  prevalent  was  well  founded,  that  the  King,  in  his 
rash  counsels  and  reckless  choice  of  ministers,  imist  have  been 
taking  advantage  of  the  generous  confidence  of  his  people,  and 
playing  on  the  easiness  of  their  temper.  If  so,  they  were  indeed 


FIRST  LETTER, 


45 


last  be  taken,  there  is  none  so  likely  to  be  supported 
with  firmness  as  that  which  has  been  adopted  with 
moderation. 

The  ruin  or  prosperity  of  a  state  depends  so  much 
5  upon  the  administration  of  its  government,  that,  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  merit  of  a  ministry,  we  need  only 
observe  the  condition  of  the  people.  If  we  see  them 
obedient  to  the  laws,  prosperous  in  their  industry, 
united  at  home,  and  respected  abroad,  we  may  reason, 
loably  presume  that  their  affairs  are  conducted  by  men 
of  experience,  abilities,  and  virtue.  If,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  we  see  a  universal  spirit  of  distrust  and  dissat¬ 
isfaction,  a  rapid  decay  of  trade,  dissensions  in  all 
parts  of  the  empire,  and  a  total  loss  of  respect  in  the 
15  eyes  of  foreign  powers,  we  may  pronounce,  without 

insulted  and  abused.  The  exordium,  then,  is  a  complete  chain  of 
logical  deduction,  and  the  case  is  fully  made  out,  provided  the 
popular  feeling  referred  to  was  correct.  And  here  ive  see  where 
the  fallacy  of  Junius  lies,  whenever  he  is  in  tl.j  '.vrong.  It  is  in 
20  taking  for  granted  one  of  the  steps  of  his  reasoning.  He  does  not, 
in  this  case,  even  mention  in  direct  terms  the  feeling  alluded  to. 
He  knew  it  was  beating  in  the  hearts  of  the  people  ;  his  whole 
preceding  train  of  thought  was  calculated  to  justify  and  inflame  it ; 
and  he  therefore  leaps  at  once  to  the  conclusion  it  involves,  and 
25  addresses  them  as  actually  filled  with  resent7nent  ‘  to  see  such  a 
temper  insulted  and  abused.'  The  feeling,  in  this  instance,  was 
to  a  great  extent  well  founded,  and  so  far  his  logic  is  complete. 
In  other  cases  his  assumption  is  a  false  one.  He  lays  hold  of  some 
slander  of  the  day,  some  distorted  statement  of  facts,  some  maxim 
30  which  is  only  half  true,  some  prevailing  passion  or  prejudice,  and 
dexterously  intermingling  them  with  a  train  of  thought  which  in 
every  other  respect  is  logical  and  just,  he  hurries  the  mind  to 
a  conclusion  which  seems  necessarily  involved  in  the  premises." — 
Goodrich, 


1 


46 


JUNIUS. 


hesitation,  that  the  government  of  that  country  is 
weak,  distracted,  and  corrupt.  The  multitude,  in  all 
countries,  are  patient  to  a  certain  point.  Ill  usage 
may  rouse  their  indignation,  and  hurry  them  into  ex¬ 
cesses,  but  the  original  fault  is  in  governfuent.  Perhaps  5 
there  never  was  an  instance  of  a  change  in  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  and  temper  of  a  whole  nation,  so  sudden 
and  extraordinary  as  that  which  the  misconduct  of 
ministers  has,  within  these  very  few  years,  produced 
in  Great  Britain.  When  our  gracious  sovereign  as- 10 
cended  the  throne,  we  were  a  flourishing  and  a  con¬ 
tented  people.  If  the  personal  virtues  of  a  king  could 
have  insured  the  happiness  of  his  subjects,  the  scene 
could  not  have  altered  so  entirely  as  it  has  done.  The 
idea  of  uniting  all  parties,  of  trying  all  characters,  and  15 
distributing  the  offices  of  state  by  rotation,  was  gra¬ 
cious  and  benevolent  to  an  extreme,  though  it  has  not 
yet  produced  the  many  salutary  effects  which  were 
intended  by  it.  To  say  nothing  of  the  wisdom  of  such 
plan,  it  undoubtedly  arose  from  an  unbounded  good-  20 
ness  of  heart,  in  which  folly  had  no  share.  It  was  not 
a  capricious  partiality  to  new  faces  ;  it  was  not  a 
natural  turn  for  low  intrigue,  nor  was  it  the  treacher¬ 
ous  amusement  of  double  and  triple  negotiations. 
No,  sir,  it  arose  from  a  continued  anxiety  in  the  purest  25 
of  all  possible  hearts  for  the  general  welfare.^  Unfor- 

^  “  In  this  attack  on  the  King,  there  is  a  refined  artifice,  rarely  if 
ever  equaled,  in  leading  the  mind  gradually  forward  from  the 
slightest  possible  insinuation  to  the  bitterest  irony.  First  we  have 
the  ‘  uniting  of  all  parties,’  which  is  proper  and  desirable  ;  next,  3^ 
‘trying  all  characters,’  which  suggests  decidedly  a  want  of  judg¬ 
ment  ;  then  ‘  distributing  the  offices  of  state  by  rotation,'  a 


FIRST  LETTER. 


47 


tunately  for  us,  the  event  has  not  been  answerable  to 
the  design.  After  a  rapid  succession  of  changes,  we 
are  reduced  to  that  change  which  hardly  any  change 
can  mend.  Yet  there  is  no  extremity  of  distress  which 
5  of  itself  ought  to  reduce  a  great  nation  to  despair.  It 
is  not  the  disorder,  but  the  physician  ;  it  is  not  a 
casual  concurrence  of  calamitous  circumstances,  it  is 
the  pernicious  hand  of  government,  which  alone  can 
make  a  whole  people  desperate. 

lo  charge  rendered  plausible,  at  least,  by  the  frequent  changes  of 
ministers,  and  involving  (if  true)  a  weakness  little  short  of  absolute 
fatuity.  The  way  being  thus  prepared,  what  was  first  insinuated 
is  now  openly  expressed  in  the  next  sentence.  The  word  ^  folly  ^ 
is  applied  to  the  conduct  of  the  King  of  England  in  the  face  of  his 
15  subjects,  and  the  application  rendered  doubly  severe  by  the  gravest 
irony.  Still,  there  is  one  relief.  Allusion  is  made  to  his  ‘  un¬ 
bounded  goodness  of  heart,’  from  which,  in  the  preceding  chain 
of  insinuations,  these  errors  of  judgment  had  been  deduced.  The 
next  sentence  takes  this  away.  It  directly  ascribes  to  the  King, 
20  with  an  increased  severity  of  ironical  denial,  some  of  the  meanest 
passions  of  royalty,  ‘a  capricious  partiality  for  new  faces,’  a 
‘  natural  love  of  low  intrigue,’  ‘  the  treacherous  amusement  of 
double  and  triple  negotiations  ’  !  It  is  unnecessary  to  remark  on 
the  admirable  precision  and  force  of  the  language  in  these  expres- 
25  sions,  and  indeed,  throughout  the  whole  passage.  There  had 
been  just  enough  in  the  King’s  conduct  for  the  last  seven  years  to 
make  the  people  suspect  all  this,  and  to  weaken  or  destroy  their 
affection  for  the  Crown.  It  was  all  connected  with  that  system 
of  favoritism  introduced  by  Lord  Bute,  which  the  nation  so  much 
30  abhorred.  Nothing  but  this  would  have  made  them  endure  for  a 
moment  such  an  attack  on  their  monarch,  and  especially  the  abso¬ 
lute  mockery  with  which  Junius  concludes  the  whole,  by  speaking 
of  ‘  the  anxiety  of  the  purest  of  all  possible  hearts  for  the  general 
welfare.’  His  entire  letter  to  the  King,  with  all  the  rancor 
35  ascribed  to  it  by  Burke,  does  not  contain  so  much  bitterness  and 
insult  as  are  concentrated  in  this  single  passage.” — Goodrich, 


48 


JUNIUS, 


Without  much  political  sagacity,  or  any  extraordi¬ 
nary  depth  of  observation,  we  need  only  mark  how  the 
principal  departments  of  the  state  are  bestowed  [dis¬ 
tributed],  and  look  no  farther  for  the  true  cause  of 
every  mischief  that  befalls  us/  5 

The  finances  of  a  nation,  sinking  under  its  debts 
and  expenses,  are  committed  to  a  young  nobleman 
already  ruined  by  play/  Introduced  to  act  under  the 
auspices  of  Lord  Chatham,  and  left  at  the  head 
of  affairs  by  that  nobleman’s  retreat,  he  became  a  lo 
minister  by  accident ;  but,  deserting  the  principles 
and  professions  which  gave  him  a  moment’s  popu¬ 
larity,  we  see  him,  from  every  honorable  engagement 
to  the  public,  an  apostate  by  design.  As  for  business, 
the  world  yet  knows  nothing  of  his  talents  or  resolu- 15 
tion,  unless  a  wavering,  wayward  inconsistency  be  a 
a  mark  of  genius,  and  caprice  a  demonstration  of 
spirit.  It  may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  it  is  his  Grace’s 
province,  as  surely  it  is  his  passion,  rather  to  distribute 
than  to  save  the  public  money,  and  that  while  Lord  20 

^  The  two  most  marked  qualities  of  this  letter  are  its  careful 
structure  and  its  concreteness  of  statement.  Junius  deals  with 
general  statements  only  in  the  first  five  paragraphs,  and  then  with 
some  specific  illustration.  After  a  reader  passes  the  fifth  para¬ 
graph,  he  reads  but  concrete  illustration  after  concrete  illustration 
of  the  truth  of  the  proposition  to  which  Junius  worked  up  carefully 
in  his  opening  paragraphs,  and  is  led  rapidly  through  them  to  the 
daringly  direct  and  bare  arraignment  by  name  of  the  ministers  at 
fault — a  climax  of  concreteness. 

^  “  The  Duke  of  Grafton,  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury.  A  reader  30 
should  notice  the  skill  that  leaves  unfinished  the  thought  that  a 
gambler  loaded  with  debts  is  in  charge  of  a  treasury  ‘  sinking 
under  its  debts  and  expenses.’  The  implied  argument  would  be 
weakened  by  any  attempt  to  expand  it.” — Goodrich. 


FIRST  LETTER, 


49 


North  is  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the  First  Lord 
of  the  Treasury  may  be  as  thoughtless  and  extravagant 
as  he  pleases.  I  hope,  however,  he  will  not  rely  too 
much  on  the  fertility  of  Lord  North’s  genius  for 
5  finance.  His  Lordship  is  yet  to  give  us  the  first  proof 
of  his  abilities.  It  may  be  candid  to  suppose  that  he 
has  hitherto  voluntarily  concealed  his  talents  ;  intend- 
ing,  perhaps,  to  astonish  the  world,  when  we  least 
expect  it,  with  a  knowledge  of  trade,  a  choice  of 
10  expedients,  and  a  depth  of  resources  equal  to  the 
necessities,  and  far  beyond  the  hopes  of  his  country. 
He  must  now  exert  the  whole  power  of  his  capacity, 
if  he  would  wish  us  to  forget  that,  since  he  has  been 
in  office,  no  plan  has  been  formed,  no  system  adhered 
15  to,  nor  any  one  important  measure  adopted  for  the 
relief  of  public  credit.  If  his  plan  for  the  service  of 
the  current  year  be  not  irrevocably  fixed  on,  let  me 
warn  him  to  think  seriously  of  consequences  before  he 
ventures  to  increase  the  public  debt.  Outraged  and 
20  oppressed  as  we  are,  this  nation  will  not  bear,  after  a 
six  years’  peace,  to  see  new  millions  borrowed,  with¬ 
out  any  eventual  diminution  of  debt  or  reduction  of 
interest.  The  attempt  might  rouse  a  spirit  of  resent¬ 
ment,  which  might  reach  beyond  the  sacrifice  of  a 
25  minister.  As  to  the  debt  upon  the  civil  list,  the  people 
of  England  expect  that  it  will  not  be  paid  without  a 
strict  inquiry  how  it  was  incurred.®  If  it  must  be  paid 

Within  about  seven  years,  the  King  had  run  up  a  debt  of 
;^5i3,ooo  beyond  the  ample  allowance  made  for  his  expenses  on 
30  the  civil  list,  and  had  just  applied,  at  the  opening  of  Parliament, 
for  a  grant  to  pay  it  off.  ‘The  nation  were  indignant  at  such  over¬ 
reaching.  The  debt,  however,  was  paid  this  session,  and  in  a  few 
years  there  was  another  contracted.” — Goodrich, 


so 


JUNIUS. 


by  Parliament,  let  me  advise  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  to  think  of  some  better  expedient  than  a 
lottery.  To  support  an  expensive  war,  or  in  circum¬ 
stances  of  absolute  necessity,  a  lottery  may  perhaps  be 
allowable  ;  but,  besides  that  it  is  at  all  times  the  very  5 
worst  way  of  raising  money  upon  the  people,  I  think 
it  ill  becomes  the  royal  dignity  to  have  the  debts  of  a 
prince  provided  for,  like  the  repairs  of  a  country 
bridge  or  a  decayed  hospital.  The  management  of 
the  King’s  affairs  in  the  House  of  Commons  cannot  10 
be  more  disgraced  than  it  has  been.  A  leading 
minister  repeatedly  called  down  for  absolute  igno¬ 
rance — ridiculous  motions  ridiculously  withdrawn — 
deliberate  plans  disconcerted,  and  a  week’s  prepara¬ 
tion  of  graceful  oratory  lost  in  a  moment,  give  us  15 
some,  though  not  an  adequate  idea  of  Lord  North’s 
parliamentary  abilities  and  influence.  Yet,  before  he 
had  the  misfortune  of  being  Chancellor  of  the  Ex¬ 
chequer,  he  was  neither  an  object  of  derision  to  his 
enemies,  nor  of  melancholy  pity  to  his  friends.  20 

A  series  of  inconsistent  measures  had  alienated  the 
colonies  from  their  duty  as  subjects  and  from  their 
natural  affection  to  their  common  country.  When 
Mr.  Grenville  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  treasury, 
he  felt  the  impossibility  of  Great  Britain’s  support- 25 
ing  such  an  establishment  as  her  former  successes 
had  made  indispensable,  and  at  the  same  time,  of 
giving  any  sensible  relief  to  foreign  trade  and  to  the 
weight  of  the  public  debt.  He  thought  it  equitable 
that  those  parts  of  the  empire  which  had  benefited  30 
most  by  the  expenses  of  the  war,  should  contribute 
something  to  the  expenses  of  the  peace,  and  he  had 


FIRST  LETTER. 


51 


no  doubt  of  the  constitutional  right  vested  in  Parlia¬ 
ment,  to  raise  the  contribution.  But,  unfortunately 
for  this  country,  Mr.  Grenville  was  at  any  rate  to  be 
distressed  because  he  was  minister,  and  Mr.  Pitt  and 
5  Lord  Camden  were  to  be  patrons  of  America,  because 
they  were  in  opposition.  Their  declaration  gcive 
spirit  and  argument  to  the  colonies  ;  and  while,  per¬ 
haps,  they  meant  no  more  than  the  ruin  of  a  minister, 
they  in  effect  divided  one-half  of  the  empire  from  the 
10  other.’' 

Under  one  administration  the  Stamp  Act  is  made, 
under  the  second  it  is  repealed,  under  the  third,  in 
spite  of  all  experience,  a  new  mode  of  taxing  the 
colonies  is  invented,  and  a  question  revived  which 
15  ought  to  have  been  buried  in  oblivion.  In  these  cir¬ 
cumstances,  a  new  office  is  established  for  the  busi¬ 
ness  of  the  Plantations,  and  the  Earl  of  Hillsborough 

“  This  attack  on  Lord  Chatham  and  his  friend  shows  the 
political  affinities  of  Junius.  He  believed  with  Mr.  Grenville 
20  and  L.ord  Rockingham  in  the  I'ight  of  Great  Britain  to  tax  Amer¬ 
ica  ;  and  in  referring  to  Mr.  Grenville’s  attempt  to  enforce  that 
right  by  the  Stamp  Act,  he  adopts  his  usual  course  of  inter¬ 
weaving  an  argument  in  its  favor  into  the  language  used.  He 
thus  prepares  the  way  for  his  censures  on  Lord  Chatham  and 
25  Lord  Camden,  affirming  that  they  acted  on  the  principle  that 
*  Mr.  Grenville  was  at  any  rate  to  be  distressed  because  he  was 
minister  and  they  were  in  opposition,’  thus  implying  that  they 
were  actuated  by  factious  and  selfish  views  in  their  defense  of 
America.  About  a  year  after  this  letter  was  written,  Lord  Rock- 
30  was  reconciled  to  Lord  Chatham  and  Lord  Camden,  and 

all  united  to  break  down  the  Grafton  ministry.  Junius,  now 
turning  round,  wrote,  in  his  fifty-fourth  letter,  his  celebrated 
eulogium  of  T.ord  Chatham,  and  in  his  last  letter,  gave  praise  to 
Lord  Camden.” — Goodrich. 


52 


JUNIUS. 


called  forth,  at  a  most  critical  season,  to  govern 
America.  The  choice  at  least  announced  to  us  a 
man  of  superior  capacity  and  knowledge.  Whether  he 
be  so  or  not,  let  his  dispatches  as  far  as  they  have 
appeared,  let  his  measures  as  far  as  they  have  5 
operated,  determine  for  him.  In  the  former  we  have 
seen  strong  assertions  without  proof,  declamation 
without  argument,  and  violent  censures  without  dig¬ 
nity  or  moderation,  but  neither  correctness  in  the 
composition  nor  judgment  in  the  design.  As  for  his  10 
measures,  let  it  be  remembered  that  he  was  called 
upon  to  conciliate  and  unite,  and  that,  when  he 
entered  into  office,  the  most  refractory  of  the  colonies 
were  still  disposed  to  proceed  by  the  constitutional 
methods  of  petition  and  remonstrance.  Since  that  15 
period  they  have  been  driven  into  excesses  little  short 
of  rebellion.  Petitions  have  been  hindered  from 
reaching  the  Throne,  and  the  continuance  of  one  of 
the  principal  assemblies  put  upon  an  arbitrary  con¬ 
dition,  which,  considering  the  temper  they  were  in,  it  20 
was  impossible  they  should  comply  with,  and  which 
would  have  availed  nothing  as  to  the  general  ques¬ 
tion  if  it  had  been  complied  with.®  So  violent,  and 
I  believe  I  may  call  it  so  unconstitutional  an  exertion 
of  the  prerogative,  to  say  nothing  of  tlie  weak,  in-  25 
judicious  terms  in  which  it  was  conveyed,  gives  us  as 
humble  an  opinion  of  his  Lordship’s  capacity  as  it 
does  of  his  temper  and  moderation.  While  we  are  at 
peace  with  other  nations,  our  military  force  may  per- 

®  “  The  ‘arbitrary  condition’  was  that  the  General  Court  of  30 
Massachusetts  should  rescind  one  of  their  own  resolutions  and 
expunge  it  from  their  records.” — Goodrich. 


FIRST  LETTER, 


53 


haps  be  spared  to  support  the  Earl  of  Hillsborough’s 
measures  in  America.  Whenever  that  force  shall  be 
necessarily  withdrawn  or  diminished,  the  dismission 
of  such  a  minister  will  neither  console  us  for  his 
5  imprudence,  nor  remove  the  settled  resentment  of 
a  people,  who,  complaining  of  an  act  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature,  are  outraged  by  an  unwarrantable  stretch  of 
prerogative,  and  supporting  their  claims  by  argu¬ 
ment,  are  insulted  with  declamation, 
lo  Drawing  lots  would  be  a  prudent  and  reasonable 
method  of  appointing  the  officers  of  state,  compared 
to  a  late  disposition  of  the  secretary’s  office.  Lord 
Rochford  was  acquainted  with  the  affairs  and  temper 
of  the  Southern  courts  ;  Lord  Weymouth  was  equally 
15  qualified  for  either  department.  By  what  unaccount¬ 
able  caprice  has  it  happened  that  the  latter,  who  pre¬ 
tends  to  no  experience  whatsoever,  is  removed  to  the 
most  important  of  the  two  departments,  and  the 
former,  by  preference,  placed  in  an  office  where  his 
20 experience  can  be  of  no  use  to  him?®  Lord  Wey- 

changes  here  censured  had  taken  place  about  three 
months  before.  The  office  of  Foreign  Secretary  for  the  Southern 
Department  was  made  vacant  by  the  resignation  of  Lord  Shel¬ 
burne.  Lord  Rochford,  who  had  been  minister  to  France,  and 
25  thus  made  ‘  acquainted  with  the  temper  of  the  Southern  Courts,’ 
ought  naturally  to  have  been  appointed  (if  at  all)  to  this  depart¬ 
ment.  Instead  of  this,  he  was  made  Secretary  of  the  Northern 
Department,  for  which  he  had  been  prepared  by  no  previous 
knowledge  ;  while  Lord  Weymouth  was  taken  from  the  Home 
30  Department,  and  placed  in  the  Southern,  being  ‘  equally  quali¬ 
fied  ’  [that  is,  wholly  unqualified  by  any  ‘  experience  whatsoever  ’] 
for  either  department  in  the  Foreign  office,  whether  Southern  or 
N  ort  hern .  ” —  Goodrich . 


54 


JUNIUS. 


mouth  had  distinguished  himself  in  his  first  employ¬ 
ment  by  a  spirited,  if  not  judicious  conduct.  He  had 
animated  the  civil  magistrate  beyond  the  tone  of  civil 
authority,  and  had  directed  the  operations  of  the  army 
to  more  than  military  execution.  Recovered  from  5 
the  errors  of  his  youth,  from  the  distraction  of  play, 
and  the  bewitching  smiles  of  Burgundy,  behold  him 
exerting  the  whole  strength  of  his  clear,  unclouded 
faculties  in  the  service  of  the  Crown.  It  was  not  the 
heat  of  midnight  excesses,  nor  ignorance  of  the  laws,  10 
nor  the  furious  spirit  of  the  house  of  Bedford  ;  no, 
sir ;  when  this  respectable  minister  interposed  his 
authority  between  the  magistrate  and  the  people,  and 
signed  the  mandate  on  which,  for  aught  he  knew,  the 
lives  of  thousands  depended,  he  did  it  .  from  the  15 
deliberate  motion  of  his  heart,  supported  by  the  best 
of  his  judgment.^® 

“  As  Secretary  of  the  Home  Department,  Lord  Weymouth 
had  addressed  a  letter  to  the  magistrates  of  London,  early  in 
1768,  advising  them  to  call  in  the  military,  provided  certain  dis-  20 
turbances  in  the  streets  should  continue.  The  idea  of  setting  the 
soldiery  to  fire  on  masses  of  unarmed  men  has  always  been 
abhorrent  to  the  English  nation.  It  was,  therefore,  a  case 
admirably  suited  to  the  purposes  of  this  letter.  In  using  it  to 
inflame  the  people  against  Lord  Weymouth,  Junius  charitably  25 
supposes  that  he  was  not  repeating  the  errors  of  his  youth — that 
he  was  neither  drunk,  nor  ignorant  of  what  he  did,  nor  impelled 
by  ‘the  furious  spirit’  of  one  of  the  proudest  families  of  the 
realm — all  of  which  Lord  Weymouth  would  certainly  say — and 
therefore  (which  his  Lordship  must  also  admit)  that  he  did,  from  30 
‘  the  deliberate  motion  of  his  heart,  supported  by  the  best  of  his 
judgment,’  sign  a  paper  which  the  great  body  of  the  people  con¬ 
sidered  as  authorizing  promiscuous  murder,  and  which  actually 
resulted  in  the  death  of  fourteen  persons  three  weeks  after.  The 


FIRST  LETTER. 


55 


It  has  lately  been  a  fashion  to  pay  a  compliment  to 
the  bravery  and  generosity  of  the  Commander-in- 
chief  [the  Marquess  of  Granby]  at  the  expense  of  his 
understanding.  They  who  love  him  least  make  no 
5  question  of  his  courage,  while  his  friends  dwell 
chiefly  on  the  facility  of  his  disposition.  Admitting 
him  to  be  as  brave  as  a  total  absence  of  all  feeling 
and  reflection  can  make  him,  let  us  see  what  sort  of 
merit  he  derives  from  the  remainder  of  his  character, 
lo  If  it  be  generosity  to  accumulate  in  his  own  person 
and  family  a  number  of  lucrative  employments  ;  to 
provide,  at  the  public  expense,  for  every  creature  that 
bears  the  name  of  Manners,  and  neglecting  the  merit 
and  services  of  the  rest  of  the  army,  to  heap  promo- 
15  tions  upon  his  favorites  and  dependents,  the  present 
Commander-in-chief  is  the  most  generous  man  alive. 
Nature  has  been  sparing  of  her  gifts  to  this  noble 
Lord  ;  but  where  birth  and  fortune  are  united,  we 
expect  the  noble  pride  and  independence  of  a  man  of 
20  spirit,  not  the  servile,  humiliating  complaisance  of  a 
courtier.  As  to  the  goodness  of  his  heart,  if  a  proof 
of  it  be  taken  from  the  facility  of  never  refusing, 
what  conclusion  shall  we  draw  from  the  indecency  of 
never  performing?  And  if  the  discipline  of  the  army 

25  whole  is  so  wrought  up  as  to  create  the  feeling  that  Lord  Weymouth 
was  in  both  of  these  states  of  mind — that  he  acted  with  delibera¬ 
tion  in  carrying  out  the  dictates  of  headlong  or  drunken  passion. 

“  All  this,  of  course,  is  greatly  exaggerated.  Severe  measures 
did  seem  indispensable  to  suppress  the  mobs  of  that  day,  and 
30  whoever  stood  forth  to  direct  them,  must  of  necessity  incur  the 
popular  indignation.  Still,  it  was  a  question  among  the  most 
candid  men,  whether  milder  means  might  not  have  been 
effectual.” — Goodrich. 


56 


JUNIUS. 


be  in  any  degree  preserved,  what  thanks  are  due  to  a 
man,  whose  cares,  notoriously  confined  to  filling  up 
vacancies,  have  degraded  the  office  of  Commander-in- 
chief  into  [that  of]  a  broker  of  commissions.” 

With  respect  to  the  navy,  I  shall  only  say  that  this  5 
country  is  so  highly  indebted  to  Sir  Edward  Hawke 
that  no  expense  should  be  spared  to  secure  him  an 
honorable  and  affluent  retreat. 

The  pure  and  impartial  administration  of  justice  is 
perhaps  the  firmest  bond  to  secure  a  cheerful  submis- 10 
sion  of  the  people,  and  to  engage  their  affections  to 
government.  It  is  not  sufficient  that  questions  of 
private  right  or  wrong  are  justly  decided,  nor  that 
judges  are  superior  to  the  vileness  of  pecuniary  cor¬ 
ruption.  Jefferies  himself,  when  the  court  had  11015 
interest,  was  an  upright  judge.  A  court  of  justice 
may  be  subject  to  another  sort  of  bias,  more  impor¬ 
tant  and  pernicious,  as  it  reaches  beyond  the  interest 
of  individuals,  and  affects  the  whole  community.  A 
judge  under  the  influence  of  government  may  be  20 

“The  Marquess  of  Granby,  personally  considered,  was  per¬ 
haps  the  most  popular  member  of  the  cabinet,  with  the  exception 
of  Sir  Edward  Hawke.  He  was  a  warm-hearted  man,  of  highly 
social  qualities  and  generous  feelings.  As  it  was  the  object  of 
Junius  to  break  down  the  rninistry,  it  was  peculiarly  necessary  for  25 
him  to  blast  and  destroy  his  popularity.  This  he  attempts  to  do 
by  discrediting  the  character  of  the  Marquess  as  a  man  of  firm¬ 
ness,  strength  of  mind,  and  disinterestedness  in  managing  the 
concerns  of  the  army.  This  attack  is  distinguished  for  its  plausi- 
"bility  and  bitterness.  His  charges  and  insinuations  are  greatly  3U 
overstrained  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  army  was  mouldering  away 
at  this  time  in  a  manner  which  left  the  country  in  a  very  defense¬ 
less  condition.'’ — Goodrich, 


FIRST  LETTER. 


57 


honest  enough  in  the  decision  of  private  causes,  yet  a 
traitor  to  the  public.  When  a  victim  is  marked  out 
by  the  ministry,  this  judge  will  offer  himself  to  per¬ 
form  the  sacrifice.  He  will  not  scruple  to  prostitute 
5  his  dignity,  and  betray  the  sanctity  of  his  office,  when¬ 
ever  an  arbitrary  point  is  to  be  carried  for  government, 
or  the  resentment  of  a  Court  to  be  gratified. 

These  principles  and  proceedings,  odious  and  con¬ 
temptible  as  they  are,  in  effect  are  no  less  injudicious. 
10  A  wise  and  generous  people  are  roused  by  every 
appearance  of  oppressive,  unconstitutional  measures, 
whether  those  measures  are  supported  openly  by  the 
power  of  government,  or  masked  under  the  forms  of 
a  court  of  justice.  Prudence  and  self-preservation 
15  will  oblige  the  most  moderate  dispositions  to  make 
common  cause,  even  with  a  man  whose  conduct  they 

John  Wilkes,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  is  referred 
to  here.  A  violent  opponent  of  Lord  Bute,  he  had  established  a 
paper,  The  North  Briton^  in  order  to  make  his  antagonism  more 
20  effective.  His  attacks  on  Bute  in  this  paper  were  exceedingly  bit¬ 
ter.  At  about  the  time  of  Lord  Bute’s  resignation,  the  issue  of 
the  journal  was  suspended,  but  when  the  royal  speech  framed  by 
Grenville’s  ministry  showed  that  only  men,  not  measures,  had 
changed,  a  supplementary  number,  “  45,”  was  published.  This  con- 
25  tained  a  caustic  criticism  of  the  King’s  message  and  of  his  Parlia¬ 
ment.  Lord  Halifax,  the  leading  Secretary  of  State,  issued  a  “gen¬ 
eral  warrant  to  search  for  authors,  printers,  and  publishers,”  and  to 
bring  them  before  him  for  examination.  Wilkes  was  arrested, 
and  thrown  into  prison.  A  week  after  his  imprisonment,  he  was 
30  released  by  order  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  on  the  ground 
of  his  exemption  from  arrest  as  a  member  of  Parliament.  Public 
feeling  was  greatly  stirred  by  the  action  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
and  the  general  warrants  were  afterward  declared  illegal.  (See 
Ency.  Brit.) 


JUNIUS, 


58 

censure,  if  they  see  him  persecuted  in  a  way  which 
the  real  spirit  of  the  laws  will  not  justify.  The  facts 
on  which  these  remarks  are  founded  are  too  notorious 
to  require  an  application.^^ 

This,  sir,  is  the  detail.  In  one  view,  behold  a  na-  5 
tion  overwhelmed  with  debt  ;  her  revenues  wasted  ; 
her  trade  declining  ;  the  affections  of  her  colonies 
alienated  ;  the  duty  of  the  magistrate  transferred  to 
the  soldiery  ;  a  gallant  army,  which  never  fought  un¬ 
willingly  but  against  their  fellow-subjects,  mouldering  10 
away  for  want  of  the  direction  of  a  man  of  common 
abilities  and  spirit  ;  and,  in  the  last  instance,  the  ad¬ 
ministration  of  justice  become  odious  and  suspected 
to  the  whole  body  of  the  people.  This  deplorable 
scene  admits  but  of  one  addition — that  we  are  gov- 15 
erned  by  councils,  from  which  a  reasonable  man  can 
expect  no  remedy  but  poison,  no  relief  but  death. 

If,  by  the  immediate  interposition  of  Providence,  it 
were  [be]  possible  for  us  to  escape  a  crisis  so  full  of 
terror  and  despair,  posterity  will  not  believe  the  history  20 
of  the  present  times.  They  will  either  conclude  that 

**  “  Lord  Mansfield  is  the  judge  pointed  at  in  this  paragraph.  No 
one  now  believes  that  this  great  jurist  ever  did  the  things  here  as¬ 
cribed  to  him  by  Junius.  All  that  is  true  is,  that  he  was  a  very 
high  Tory,  and  was,  therefore,  naturally  led  to  exalt  the  preroga-  25 
tives  of  the  Crown  ;  and  that  he  was  a  very  politic  man  (and  this 
was  the  great  failing  in  his  character),  and  therefore  unwilling  to 
oppose  the  King  or  his  ministers,  when  he  knew  in  heart  they 
were  wrong.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  case  in  respect  to  the 
issuing  of  the  general  warrant  for  apprehending  Wilkes,  which  he  30 
ought  publicly  to  have  condemned  ;  but,  as  he  remained  silent,  men 
naturally  considered  him,  in  his  character  of  Chief  Justice,  as  hav¬ 
ing  approved  of  the  course  directed  by  the  King.”  — Goodnch, 


FIRST  LETTER. 


59 


our  distresses  were  imaginary,  or  that  we  had  the 
good  fortune  to  be  governed  by  men  of  acknowledged 
integrity  and  wisdom.  They  will  not  believe  it  possi¬ 
ble  that  their  ancestors  could  have  survived,  or  re- 
5  covered  from  so  desperate  a  condition,  while  a  Duke 
of  Grafton  was  Prime  Minister,  a  Lord  North  Chan¬ 
cellor  of  the  Exchequer,  a  Weymouth  and  a  Hills¬ 
borough  Secretaries  of  State,  a  Granby  Commander- 
in-chief,  and  a  Mansfield  chief  criminal  judge  of  the 
10  kingdom. 


Junius. 


U.  1b.  ibujle^. 

Born  1825. 

LECTURE  I  OF  THREE  LECTURES  ON  EVOLUTION.* 

Delivered  in  New  York,  1876. 

[When,  in  1876,  Professor  Huxley  gave,  in  New  York,  his  three 
lectures  on  “  Evolution,”  his  task  was  by  no  means  so  simple  as 
it  seems  to-day,  for  at  that  time  the  acceptance  of,  or  toleration 
for  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  was  far  less  general  than  it  is  in 
1893.  Since  i860,  when  Professor  Huxley  gave  a  course  of  lec¬ 
tures  to  workingmen  on  “  The  Relations  of  Man  to  the  Lower 
Animals,”  he  had  been  a  central  figure  in  the  heated  controversy 
in  learned  societies  and  in  the  magazines  in  regard  to  Evolution. 

He  knew  that  in  his  audience  must  be  some  ignorance  of  what 
Evolution' really  means  ;  probably  considerable  prejudice  against 
the  theory  and  himself  ;  that  his  success  or  failure  to  make  his 
exposition  clear  and  convincing  meant  to  give  new  impetus  to 
the  spread  of  the  doctrine  or  to  check  it.] 

We  live  in  and  form  part  of  a  system  of  things  of 
immense  diversity  and  complexity,  which  we  call 
Nature  ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  the 'deepest  interest  to 
all  of  us  that  we  should  form  just  conceptions  of  the 
constitution  of  that  system  and  of  its  past  history.^  5 

*  Reprinted  by  permission  of  Messrs.  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  from 
“American  Addresses,”  1877. 

College  students  of  science  who  wish  to  write  on  their  favorite 
subjects  seem  often  to  think  it  beneath  them  to  express  them¬ 
selves  in  terms  that  a  reader  not  trained  in  their  departments  of  m 
knowledge  can  understand.  To  show  such  writers  that  masters 
of  science,  in  addressing  a  mixed  audience,  not  only  do  not  dis- 


60 


ON  EVOLUTION, 


6i 

With  relation  to  this  universe,  man  is,  in  extent,  little 
more  than  a  mathematical  point ;  in  duration  but  a 
fleeting  shadow  ;  he  is  a  mere  reed  shaken  in  the 
winds  of  force.  But,  as  Pascal  long  ago  remarked, 

5  although  a  mere  reed,  he  is  a  thinking  reed  ;  and  in 
virtue  of  that  wonderful  capacity  of  thought,  he  has 
the  power  of  framing  for  himself  a  symbolic  concep¬ 
tion  of  the  universe,  which,  although  doubtless  highly 
imperfect  and  inadequate  as  a  picture  of  the  great 
JO  whole,  is  yet  sufficient  to  serve  him  as  a  chart  for  the 
guidance  of  his  practical  affairs.  It  has  taken  long 
ages  of  toilsome  and  often  fruitless  labor  to  enable 
man  to  look  steadily  at  the  shifting  scenes  of  the 
phantasmagoria  of  Nature,  to  notice  what  is  fixed 
15  among  her  fluctuations,  and  what  is  regular  among 
her  apparent  irregularities  ;  and  it  is  only  compara¬ 
tively  lately,  within  the  last  few  centuries,  that  the 
conception  of  a  universal  order  and  of  a  definite 
course  of  things,  which  we  term  the  course  of  Nature, 
20  has  emerged. 

But,  once  originated,  the  conception  of  the  con¬ 
stancy  of  the  order  of  Nature  has  become  the  dominant 
idea  of  modern  thought.  To  any  person  who  is  famil¬ 
iar  with  the  facts  upon  which  that  conception  is  based, 

25  dain,  but  even  study  to  attain  simplicity  of  speech,  is  one  reason  for 
reprinting  this  lecture  of  Professor  Huxley.  Addressing  an  audience 
that  he  felt  was  not  scientific,  he  spoke  throughout  with  great 
simplicity,  using  scarcely  any  technical  terms.  Knowing  that 
his  audience  as  a  whole  had  but  the  popular  impressions  of  Evo- 
3olution,  half  false,  half  true,  he  aimed  first  of  all  at  clearness,  and 
carefully  defined  every  term  that  might  be  vague  for  some  hearers.. 
The  three  most  noteworthy  characteristics  of  this  address  are  its 
simplicity  of  phrasing,  its  clearness,  and  its  persuasive  skill. 


62 


T.  //.  HUXLEY. 


and  is  competent  to  estimate  their  significance,  it  has 
ceased  to  be  conceivable  that  chance  should  have  any 
place  in  the  universe,  or  that  events  should  depend 
upon  any  but  the  natural  sequence  of  cause  and  effect. 
We  have  come  to  look  upon  the  present  as  the  child  5 
of  the  past  and  as  the  parent  of  the  future  ;  and,  as 
we  have  excluded  chance  from  a  place  in  the  universe, 
so  we  ignore,  even  as  a  possibility,  the  notion  of  any 
interference  with  the  order  of  Nature.  Whatever 
may  be  men’s  speculative  doctrines,  it  is  quite  certain  10 
that  every  intelligent  person  guides  his  life  and  risks 
his  fortune  upon  the  belief  that  the  order  of  Nature 
is  constant,  and  that  the  chain  of  natural  causation 
is  never  broken. 

In  fact,  no  belief  which  we  entertain  has  so  com- 15 
plete  a  logical  basis  as  that  to  which  I  have  just 
referred.  It  tacitly  underlies  every  process  of  reason¬ 
ing  ;  it  is  the  foundation  of  every  act  of  the  will.  It 
is  based  upon  the  broadest  induction,  and  it  is  verified 
by  the  most  constant,  regular,  and  universal  of  deduc-20 
tive  processes.  But  we  must  recollect  that  any 
human  belief,  however  broad  its  basis,  however 
defensible  it  may  seem,  is,  after  all,  only  a  probable 
belief,  and  that  our  widest  and  safest  generalizations 
ar«  simply  statements  of  the  highest  degree  of  proba-25 
bility.  Though  we  are  quite  clear  about  the  con¬ 
stancy  of  the  order  of  Nature,  at  the  present  time, 
and  in  the  present  state  of  things,  it  by  no  means 
necessarily  follows  that  we  are  justified  in  expanding 
this  generalization  into  the  infinite  past,  and  in  deny- 30 
ing,  absolutely,  that  there  may  have  been  a  time  when 
Nature  did  not  follow  a  fixed  order,  when  the 


ON  EVOLUTION. 


63 


relations  of  cause  and  effect  were  not  definite,  and 
when  extra-natural  agencies  interfered  with  the 
general  course  of  Nature.  Cautious  men  will  allow 
that  a  universe  so  different  from  that  which  we  know 
5  may  have  existed  ;  just  as  a  very  candid  thinker  may 
admit  that  a  world  in  which  two  and  two  do  not 
make  four,  and  in  which  two  straight  lines  do  inclose 
a  space,  may  exist.  But  the  same  caution  which 
forces  the  admission  of  such  possibilities  demands  a 
10  great  deal  of  evidence  before  it  recognizes  them  to 
be  anything  more  substantial.  x\nd  when  it  is 
asserted  that,  so  many  thousand  years  ago,  events 
occurred  in  a  manner  utterly  foreign  to  and  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  the  existing  laws  of  Nature,  men,  who,  with- 
15  out  being  particularly  cautious,  are  simply  honest 
thinkers,  unwilling  to  deceive  themselves  or  delude 
others,  ask  for  trustworthy  evidence  of  the  fact. 

Did  things  so  happen  or  did  they  not  ?  This  is  a 
historical  question,  and  one  the  answer  to  which  must 
20  be  sought  in  the  same  way  as  the  solution  of  any 
other  historical  problem.^ 

^  Professor  Huxley,  knowing  that  some  of  his  audience,  as 
strong  churchmen,  were  probably  antagonistic  to  him  in  mood, 
made  his  introduction  not  only  so  clear  that  all  must  understand 
25  him,  but  so  fair  that  all  must  grant  what  he  said.  Speaking  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  unprejudiced  man  of  common  sense, — what 
each  of  his  hearers  wished  to  be, — and  suggesting  steadily  that  with 
this  man  he  cordially  sympathized,  he  stated  the  problem  of  crea¬ 
tion  as  simply  as  his  hearers  must  often  have  stated  it  to  them- 
30  selves.  Then  he  and  his  hearers  were  ready  fora  statement  of  the 
three  hypotheses.  Thus  far  he  had,  by  his  simplicity  made  his 
hearers  understand  him  ;  by  his  fairness  trust  him  ;  and  by  his  skill 
meet  him  on  common  ground. 


64 


T,  H.  HUXLEY, 


So  far  as  I  know,  there  are  only  three  hypotheses 
which  ever  have  been  entertained,  or  which  well  can 
be  entertained,  respecting  the  past  history  of  Nature. 

I  will,  in  the  first  place,  state  the  hypotheses,  and 
then  I  will  consider  what  evidence  bearing  upon  them  5 
is  in  our  possession,  and  by  what  light  of  criticism 
that  evidence  is  to  be  interpreted. 

Upon  the  first  hypothesis,  the  assumption  is,  that 
phenomena  of  Nature  similar  to  those  exhibited  by 
the  present  world  have  always  existed;  in  other  10 
words,  that  the  universe  has  existed  from  all  eternity 
in  what  may  be  broadly  termed  its  present  condition. 

The  second  hypothesis  is,  that  the  present  state 
of  things  has  had  only  a  limited  duration  ;  and  that, 
at  some  period  in  the  past,  a  condition  of  the  world,  15 
essentially  similar  to  that  which  we  now  know,  came 
into  existence,  without  any  precedent  condition  from 
which  it  could  have  naturally  proceeded.  The  assump¬ 
tion  that  successive  states  of  Nature  have  arisen,  each 
without  any  relation  of  natural  causation  to  an  ante-  20 
cedent  state,  is  a  mere  modification  of  this  second 
hypothesis. 

The  third  hypothesis  also  assumes  that  the  present 

» 

state  of  things  has  had  but  a  limited  duration  ;  but  it 
supposes  that  this  state  has  been  evolved  by  a  natural  25 
process  from  an  antecedent  state,  and  that  from 
another,  and  so  on ;  and,  on  this  hypothesis,  the 
attempt  to  assign  any  limit  to  the  series  of  past  changes 
is,  usually,  given  up. 

It  is  so  needful  to  form  clear  and  distinct  notions  30 
of  what  is  really  meant  by  each  of  these  hypotheses 
that  I  will  ask  you  to  imagine  what,  according  to  each, 


ON  EVOLUTION, 


65 


would  have  been  visible  to  a  spectator  of  the  events 
which  constitute  the  history  of  the  earth.  On  the  first 
hypothesis,  however  far  back  in  time  that  spectator 
might  be  placed,  he  would  see  a  world  essentially, 
5  though  perhaps  not  in  all  its  details,  similar  to  that 
which  now  exists.  The  animals  which  existed  would 
be  the  ancestors  of  those  which  now  live,  and  similar 
to  them  ;  the  plants,  in  like  manner,  would  be  such 
as  we  know  ;  and  the  mountains,  plains,  and  waters 
10  would  foreshadow  the  salient  features  of  our  present 
land  and  water.  This  view  was  held  more  or  less 
distinctly,  sometimes  combined  with  the  notion  of 
recurrent  cycles  of  change,  in  ancient  times  ;  and  its 
influence  has  been  felt  down  to  the  present  day.  It 
15  is  worthy  of  remark  that  it  is  a  hypothesis  which  is 
not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Uniformitarian- 
ism,  with  which  geologists  are  familiar.  That  doctrine 
was  held  by  Hutton,  and  in  his  earlier  days  by  Lyell. 
Hutton  was  struck  bv  the  demonstration  of  astrono- 
20mers  that  the  perturbations  of  the  planetary  bodies, 
however  great  they  may  be,  yet  sooner  or  later  right 

1 

themselves  ;  and  that  the  solar  system  possesses  a 
self-adjusting  power  by  which  these  aberrations  are 
all  brought  back  to  a  mean  condition.  Hutton 
25  imagined  that  the  like  might  be  true  of  terrestrial 
changes  ;  although  no  one  recognized  more  clearly 
than  he  the  fact  that  the  dry  land  is  being  constantly 
washed  down  by  rain  and  rivers  and  deposited  in  the 
sea  ;  and  that  thus,  in  a  longer  or  shorter  time,  the 
30  inequalities  of  the  earth’s  surface  must  be  levelled, 
and  its  high  lands  brought  down  to  the  ocean.  But, 
taking  into  account  the  internal  forces  of  the  earth, 


66 


T.  II.  HUXLEY. 


which,  upheaving  the  sea-bottom,  give  rise  to  new 
land,  he  thought  that  these  operations  of  degradation 
and  elevation  might  compensate  each  other  ;  and  that 
thus,  for  any  assignable  time,  the  general  features  of 
our  planet  might  remain  what  they  are.  And  inas-  5 
much  as,  under  these  circumstances,  there  need  be  no 
limit  to  the  propagation  of  animals  and  plants,  it  is 
clear  that  the  consistent  working-out  of  the  uniformi- 
tarian  idea  might  lead  to  the  conception  of  the  eternity 
of  the  world.  Not  that  I  mean  to  say  that  either  10 
Hutton  or  Lyell  held  this  conception — assuredly  not  ; 
they  would  have  been  the  first  to  repudiate  it.  Never¬ 
theless,  the  logical  development  of  their  arguments 
tends  directly  toward  this  hypothesis. 

The  second  hypothesis  supposes  that  the  present  15 
order  of  things,  at  some  no  very  remote  time,  had  a 
sudden  origin,  and  that  the  world,  such  as  it  now  is, 
had  chaos  for  its  phenomenal  antecedent.  That  is 
the  doctrine  which  vou  will  find  stated  most  fullv  and 

j  V 

clearly  in  the  immortal  poem  of  John  Milton — the  20 
English  Divina  Commedia — Paradise  Lost.  1  believe 
it  is  largely  to  the  influence  of  that  remarkable  work, 
combined  with  the  daily  teachings  to  which  we  have 
all  listened  in  our  childhood,  that  this  hypothesis  owes 
its  general  wide  diffusion  as  one  of  the  current  beliefs  25 
of  English-speaking  people.  If  you  turn  to  the 
seventh  book  of  Paradise  Lost,  vou  will  find  there 
stated  the  hypothesis  to  which  I  refer,  which  is  briefly 
this  :  That  this  visible  universe  of  ours  came  into 
existence  at  no  great  distance  of  time  from  the  pres- 30 
ent  ;  and  that  the  parts  of  which  it  is  composed 
made  their  appearance,  in  a  certain  definite  order,  in 


ON  EVOLUTION, 


67 


the  space  of  six  natural  days,  in  such  a  manner  that, 
on  the  first  of  these  days,  light  appeared  ;  that,  on 
the  second,  the  firmament,  or  sky,  separated  the 
waters  above,  from  the  waters  beneath  the  firmament ; 

5  that,  on  the  third  day,  the  waters  drew  away  from  the 
dry  land,  and  upon  it  a  varied  vegetable  life,  similar 
to  that  which  now  exists,  made  its  appearance  ;  that 
the  fourth  day  was  signalized  by  the  apparition  of  the 
sun,  the  stars,  the  moon,  and  the  planets  ;  that,  on  the 
10  fifth  day,  aquatic  animals  originated  within  the  waters; 
that,  on  the  sixth  day,  the  earth  gave  rise  to  our  four- 
footed  terrestrial  creatures,  and  to  all  varieties  of  ter¬ 
restrial  animals  except  birds,  which  had  appeared  on 
the  preceding  day  ;  and,  finally,  that  man  appeared 
15  upon  the  earth,  and  the  emergence  of  the  universe 
from  chaos  was  finished.  Milton  tells  us,  without  the 
least  ambiguity,  what  a  spectator  of  these  marvellous 
occurrences  would  have  witnessed.  I  doubt  not  that 
his  poem  is  familiar  to  all  of  you,  but  I  should  like  to 
20  recall  one  passage  to  your  minds,  in  order  that  I  may 
be  justified  in  what  I  have  said  regarding  the  per¬ 
fectly  concrete,  definite  picture  of  the  origin  of  the 
animal  world  which  Milton  draws.  He  says  : 

The  sixth,  and  of  creation  last,  arose 
25  With  evening  harps  and  matin,  when  God  said, 

“  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  soul  living  in  her  kind, 

Cattle  and  creeping  things,  and  beast  of  the  earth. 

Each  in  their  kind  !  The  earth  obeyed,  and,  straight 
Opening  her  fertile  womb,  teemed  at  a  birth 
20  Innumerous  living  creatures,  perfect  forms. 

Limbed  and  full-grown.  Out  of  the  ground  uprose, 

As  from  his  lair,  the  wild  beast,  where  he  wons 
In  forest  wild,  in  thicket,  brake,  or  den  ; 


68 


T.  H.  HUXLEY. 


Among  the  trees  in  pairs  they  rose,  they  walked  ; 

The  cattle  in  the  fields  and  meadows  green  : 

Those  rare  and  solitary  ;  these  in  flocks 
Pasturing  at  once,  and  in  broad  herds  upsprung. 

I'he  grassy  clods  now  calved  ;  now  half  appears  ^ 

The  tawny  lion,  pawing  to  get  free 

His  hinder  parts — then  springs,  as  broke  from  bonds, 

And  rampant  shakes  his  brinded  mane  ;  the  ounce, 

The  libbard,  and  the  tiger,  as  the  mole 

Rising,  the  crumbled  earth  above  them  threw  lo 

In  hillocks  ;  the  swift  stag  from  underground 

Bore  up  his  branching  head  ;  scarce  from  his  mould 

Behemoth,  biggest  born  of  earth,  upheaved 

His  vastness  ;  fleeced  the  flocks  and  bleating  rose 

As  plants  ;  ambiguous  between  sea  and  land,  15 

The  river-horse  and  scaly  crocodile. 

At  once  came  forth  whatever  creeps  the  ground, 

I  n  s^^^M^vor  m . 

There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  state¬ 
ment,  nor  as  to  what  a  man  of  Milton’s  genius  expected  20 
would  have  been  actually  visible  to  an  eye-witness  of 
this  mode  of  organization  of  living  things. 

The  third  hypothesis,  or  the  hypothesis  of  evolution, 
supposes  that,  at  any  comparatively  late  period  of  past 
time,  our  imaginary  spectator  would  meet  with  a  state  25 
of  things  very  similar  to  that  which  now  obtains  ;  but 
that  the  likeness  of  the  past  to  the  present  would 
gradually  become  less  and  less,  in  proportion  to  the 
remoteness  of  his  period  of  observation  from  the 
present  day  ;  that  the  existing  distribution  of  moun-  30 
tains  and  plains,  of  rivers  and  seas,  would  show  itself 
to  be  product  of  a  slow  process  of  natural  change 
operating  upon  more  and  more  widely  different  ante¬ 
cedent  conditions  of  the  mineral  framework  of  the 


ON  EVOLUTION, 


69 


earth  ;  until,  at  length,  in  place  of  that  framework, 
he  would  behold  only  a  vast  nebulous  mass,  repre¬ 
senting  the  constituents  of  the  sun  and  of  the  planetary 
bodies.  Preceding  the  forms  of  life  which  now  exist 
5  our  observer  would  see  animals  and  plants  not  iden¬ 
tical  with  them,  but  like  them  ;  increasing  their  differ¬ 
ences  with  their  antiquity  and,  at  the  same  time, 
becoming  simpler  and  simpler  ;  until,  finally,  the 
world  of  life  would  present  nothing  but  that  undiffer- 
loentiated  protoplasmic  matter  which,  so  far  as  our 
present  knowledge  goes,  is  the  common  foundation 
of  all  vital  activity. 

The  hypothesis  of  evolution  supposes  that  in  all 
this  vast  progression  there  would  be  no  breach  of 
15  continuity,  no  point  at  which  we  could  say  ‘‘  This  is  a 
natural  process,”  and  This  is  not  a  natural  process  ”  ; 
but  that  the  whole  might  be  compared  to  that  wonder¬ 
ful  process  of  development  which  may  be  seen  going 
on  every  day  under  our  eyes,  in  virtue  of  which  there 
20  arises,  out  of  the  semi-fluid,  comparatively  homoge¬ 
neous  substance  which  we  call  an  egg,  the  compli¬ 
cated  organization  of  one  of  the  higher  animals. 
That,  in  a  few  words,  is  what  is  meant  by  the  hypoth¬ 
esis  of  evolution. 

25  Professor  Huxley,  stating  the  three  hypotheses  at  first  as 
simply  as  he  could,  felt  even  then  that  they  sounded  vague,  and 
therefore  brought  in  concrete  illustration  to  make  each  clearer. 
When  he  spoke,  far  more  than  to-day,  discussion  of  the  theory  of 
Evolution  made  church-people  combative  at  once,  because  of  the 
essential  contradiction  they  premised  between  it  and  the  biblical 
theory  of  creation.  Knowing  this.  Professor  Huxley  carefully 
avoided  reference  to  the  second  hypothesis  as  biblical,  lest,  before 
he  had  placed  all  the  hypotheses  clearly  before  his  hearers,  he 


70 


T.  H.  HUXLEY, 


I  have  already  suggested  that  in  dealing  with  these 
three  hypotheses,  in  endeavoring  to  form  a  judgment 
as  to  which  of  them  is  the  more  worthy  of  belief,  or 
whether  none  is  worthy  of  belief — in  which  case  our 
condition  of  mind  should  be  that  suspension  of  judg-  5 
ment  which  is  so  difficult  to  all  but  trained  intellects 
— we  should  be  indifferent  to  all  a  priori  considera¬ 
tions.  The  question  is  a  question  of  historical  fact. 
The  universe  has  come  into  existence  somehow  or 
other,  and  the  problem  is,  whether  it  came  into  exist- 10 
ence  in  one  fashion,  or  whether  it  came  into  existence 
in  another  ;  and,  as  an  essential  preliminary  to  further 
discussion,  permit  me  to  say  two  or  three  words  as  to 
the  nature  and  the  kinds  of  historical  evidence. 

The  evidence  as  to  the  occurrence  of  any  event  in  15 
past  time  may  be  ranged  under  two  heads  which,  for 
convenience’  sake,  I  will  speak  of  as  testimonial  evi¬ 
dence  and  circumstantial  evidence.  By  testimonial 
evidence  I  mean  human  testimony ;  and  by  circum¬ 
stantial  evidence  I  mean  evidence  which  is  not  human  20 
testimony.  Let  me  illustrate  by  a  familiar  example 

should  be  involved  in  explanations  of  his  interpretation  of  the 
lines  in  Genesis.  To  avoid  this  danger,  he  called  the  second 
hypothesis  the  Miltonic,  by  the  newness  of  this  term  arousing  the 
curiosity  of  the  audience  and  turning  their  thoughts  from  the  Bible  25 
to  Paradise  Lost.  There  could  be  no  doubt  that  he  interpreted 
correctly  the  lines  he  read  :  there  might,  as  he  shows  later,  have 
been  much  discussion  about  any  interpretation  he  gave  of  the 
words  in  Genesis.  Moreover,  all  fair-minded  hearers  must  have 
recognized  that  the  Miltonic  statement  is  the  legitimate  working- 
out  of  the  theory  taught  them  as  children.  By  his  skill  Professor 
Huxley  got  the  three  hypotheses  before  his  audience  without 
treating  a  difficult  and  dangerous  topic. 


ON  EVOLUTION. 


71 


what  I  understand  by  these  two  kinds  of  evidence, 
and  what  is  to  be  said  respecting  their  value. 

Suppose  that  a  man  tells  you  that  he  saw  a  person 
strike  another  and  kill  him  ;  that  is  testimonial  evi- 
5  dence  of  the  fact  of  murder.  But  it  is  possible  to 
have  circumstantial  evidence  of  the  fact  of  murder  ; 
that  is  to  say,  you  may  find  a  man  dying  with  a 
wound  upon  his  head  having  exactly  the  form  and 
character  of  the  wound  which  is  made  by  an  axe,  and, 
10  with  due  care  in  taking  surrounding  circumstances 
into  account,  you  may  conclude  with  the  utmost  cer¬ 
tainty  that  the  man  has  been  murdered  ;  that  his 
death  is  the  consequence  of  a  blow  inflicted  by 
another  man  with  that  implement.  We  are  very  much 
15  in  the  habit  of  considering  circumstantial  evidence  as 
of  less  value  than  testimonial  evidence,  and  it  may 
be  that,  where  the  circumstances  are  not  perfectly 
clear  and  intelligible,  it  is  a  dangerous  and  unsafe 
kind  of  evidence  ;  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that, 
20  in  many  cases,  circumstantial  is  quite  as  conclusive  as 
testimonial  evidence,  and  that,  not  unfrequently,  it  is 
a  great  deal  weightier  than  testimonial  evidence. 
For  example,  take  the  case  to  which  I  referred  just 
now.  The  circumstantial  evidence  may  be  better  and 
25  more  convincing  than  the  testimonial  evidence  ;  for  it 
may  be  impossible,  under  the  conditions  that  I  have 
defined,  to  suppose  that  the  man  met  his  death  from 
any  cause  but  the  violent  blow  of  an  axe  wielded  by 
another  man.  The  circumstantial  evidence  in  favor 
30  of  a  murder  having  been  committed,  in  that  case,  is 
as  complete  and  as  convincing  as  evidence  can  be. 
It  is  evidence  which  is  open  to  no  doubt  and  to  no 


72 


T,  H,  HUXLEY. 


falsification.  But  the  testimony  of  a  witness  is  open 
to  multitudinous  doubts.  He  may  have  been  mis¬ 
taken.  He  may  have  been  actuated  by  malice.  It 
has  constantly  happened  that  even  an  accurate  man 
has  declared  that  a  thing  has  happened  in  this,  that,  5 
or  the  other  way,  when  a  careful  analysis  of  the  cir¬ 
cumstantial  evidence  has  shown  that  it  did  not  happen 
in  that  way,  but  in  some  other  way.^ 

We  may  now  consider  the  evidence  in  favor  of  or 
against  the  three  hypotheses.  Let  me  first  direct  your  10 
attention  to  what  is  to  be  said  about  the  hypothesis 
of  the  eternity  of  the  state  of  things  in  which  we  now 
live.  What  will  first  strike  you  is,  that  it  is  a  hy¬ 
pothesis  which,  whether  true  or  false,  is  not  capable  of 
verification  by  any  evidence.  For,  in  order  to  obtain  15 
either  circumstantial  or  testimonial  evidence  sufficient 
to  prove  the  eternity  of  duration  of  the  present  state 
of  nature,  you  must  have  an  eternity  of  witnesses  or 
an  infinity  of  circumstances,  and  neither  of  these  is 
attainable.  It  is  utterly  impossible  that  such  evidence  20 
should  be  carried  beyond  a  certain  point  of  time  ;  and 
all  that  could  be  said,  at  most,  would  be,  that  so 
far  as  the  evidence  could  be  traced,  there  was  nothing 
to  contradict  the  hypothesis.  But  when  you  look, 
not  to  the  testimonial  evidence — which,  considering  25 

®  This  careful  distinction  between,  and  illustration  of,  testimonial 
and  circumstantial  evidence  shows  how  careful  Professor  Huxley 
was  not  to  leave  in  his  hearers’  minds  any  vagueness  as  to  his 
terms.  There  is  a  popular  feeling  that  circumstantial  evidence  is 
not  very  trustworthy,  and  since  all  of  the  proof  Professor  Huxley  30 
intended  to  use  in  support  of  his  theory  was  circumstantial  evi¬ 
dence,  it  was  necessary  to  do  away  with  this  prejudice  in  the 
minds  of  his  hearers. 


OM  EVOLUTION, 


73 


the  relative  insignificance  of  the  antiquity  of  human 
records,  might  not  be  good  for  much  in  this  case — 
but  to  the  circumstantial  evidence,  then  you  find  that 
this  hypothesis  is  absolutely  incompatible  with  such 
5  evidence  as  we  have  ;  which  is  of  so  plain  and  so 
simple  a  character  that  it  is  impossible  in  any  way 
to  escape  from  the  conclusions  which  it  forces 
upon  us. 

You  are,  doubtless,  all  aware  that  the  outer  sub- 
10  stance  of  the  earth,  which  alone  is  accessible  to  direct 
observation,  is  not  of  a  homogeneous  character,  but 
that  it  is  made  up  of  a  number  of  layers  or  strata.® 
On  careful  examination,  it  is  found  that  the  mate¬ 
rials  of  which  each  of  these  layers  of  more  or  less 
15  hard  rock  are  composed,  are,  for  the  most  part,  of  the 
same  nature  as  those  which  are  at  present  being 
formed  under  known  conditions  on  the  surface  of  the 


®  In  Geology  the  strata  bear  the  following  names.  (The  Post- 
Tertiary  is  the  most  recent.  Read  the  main  divisions  from  left 
20  to  right,  the  sub-dirisions  downward,  within  each  bracket). 


Tertiary  and 
Quaternary 
or 

Cainzoic. 


Post-Tertiary. 

Pliocene. 

Miocene. 

^  Eocene. 


25 


30 


Primary  or 
Palaeozoic. 


Permian. 
Carboniferous. 
Devonian. 

^  Silurian. 
Cambrian. 
Huronian. 
Laurentian. 


Secondary 

or 

Mesozoic. 


r 


Cretaceous. 

J urassic  or  Oolitic. 
Triassic. 


74 


1\  H.  HUXLEY, 


earth.  For  example,  the  chalk,  which  constitutes  a 
great  part  of  the  Cretaceous  formation  in  some  parts 
of  the  world,  is  practically  identical  in  its  physical 
and  chemical  characters  with  a  substance  which  is 
now  being  formed  at  the  bottom  of  the  Atlantic  5 
Ocean,  and  covers  an  enormous  area  ;  other  beds  of 
rock  are  comparable  with  the  sands  which  are  being 
formed  upon  sea-shores,  packed  together,  and  so  on. 
Thus,  omitting  rocks  of  igneous  origin,  it  is  demon¬ 
strable  that  all  these  beds  of  stone,  of  which  a  total  10 
of  not  less  than  seventy  thousand  feet  is  known, 
have  been  formed  by  natural  agencies,  either  out  of 
the  waste  and  washing  of  the  dry  land,  or  else  by 
the  accumulation  of  the  exuviae  of  plants  and  ani¬ 
mals.  Many  of  these  strata  are  full  of  such  exuviae —  15 
the  so-called  fossils.”  Remains  of  thousands  of 
species  of  animals  and  plants,  as  perfectly  recog¬ 
nizable  as  those  of  existing  forms  of  life  which  you 
meet  with  in  museums,  or  as  the  shells  which  you  pick 
up  upon  the  sea-beach,  have  been  imbedded  in  the  20 
ancient  sands,  or  muds,  or  limestones,  just  as  they  are 
being  imbedded  now,  in  sandy,  or  clayey,  or  calcare¬ 
ous  subaqueous  deposits.  They  furnish  us  with  a 
record,  the  general  nature  of  which  cannot  be  misin¬ 
terpreted,  of  the  kinds  of  things  that  have  lived  upon  25 
the  surface  of  the  earth  during  the  time  that  is  regis¬ 
tered  by  this  great  thickness  of  stratified  rocks.  But 
even  a  superficial  study  of  these  fossils  shows  us  that 
the  animals  and  plants  which  live  at  the  present  time 
have  had  only  a  temporary  duration  ;  for  the  remains  30 
of  such  modern  forms  of  life  are  met  with,  for  the 
most  part,  only  in  the  uppermost  or  latest  tertiaries, 


ox  EVOLUTION. 


75 


and  their  number  rapidly  diminishes  in  the  lower 
deposits  of  that  epoch.  In  the  older  tertiaries,  the 
places  of  existing  animals  and  plants  are  taken  by 
other  forms,  as  numerous  and  diversified  as  those 
5  which  live  now  in  the  same  localities,  but  more  or  less 
different  from  them  ;  in  the  mesozoic  rocks, these  are 
replaced  by  others  yet  more  divergent  from  modern 
types;  and  in  the  palaeozoic  formations  the  contrast  is 
still  more  marked.  Thus  the  circumstantial  evidence 
10  absolutely  negatives  the  conception  of  the  eternity 
of  the  present  condition  of  things.  We  can  say  with 
certainty  that  the  present  condition  of  things  has  ex¬ 
isted  for  a  comparatively  short  period  ;  and  that,  so 
far  as  animal  and  vegetable  nature  are  concerned,  it 
15  has  been  preceded  by  a  different  condition.  We  can 
pursue  this  evidence  until  we  reach  the  lowest  of  the 
stratified  rocks,  in  which  we  lose  the  indications  of  life 
altogether.  The  hypothesis  of  the  eternity  of  the 
present  state  of  Nature  may  therefore  be  put  out  of 
20  court. 

We  now  come  to  what  I  will  term  Milton’s  hypoth¬ 
esis — the  hypothesis  that  the  present  condition  of 
things  has  endured  for  a  comparatively  short  time  ; 
and,  at  the  commencement  of  that  time,  came  into 
25  existence  within  the  course  of  six  days.  I  doubt  not 
that  it  may  have  excited  some  surprise  in  your  minds 
that  I  should  have  spoken  of  this  as  Milton’s  hypoth¬ 
esis,  rather  than  that  I  should  have  chosen  the  terms 
which  are  more  customary,  such  as  the  doctrine  of 
30  creation,”  or ‘‘ the  Biblical  doctrine,”  or the  doc¬ 
trine  of  Moses,”  all  of  which  denominations,  as  applied 
to  the  hypothesis  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  are 


76 


T,  H.  HUXLEY, 


certainly  much  more  familiar  to  you  than  the  title  of 
the  Miltonic  hypothesis/  But  I  have  had  what  I  can¬ 
not  but  think  are  very  weighty  reasons  for  taking  the 
course  which  I  have  pursued.  In  the  first  place,  I 
have  discarded  the  title  of  the  doctrine  of  creation,”  5 
because  my  present  business  is  not  with  the  question 
why  the  objects  which  constitute  Nature  came  into 
existence,  but  when  they  came  into  existence,  and  in 
what  order.  This  is  as  strictly  a  historical  question 
as  the  question  when  the  Angles  and  the  Jutes  in- 10 
vaded  England,  and  whether  they  preceded  or  fol¬ 
lowed  the  Romans.  But  the  question  about  creation 
is  a  philosophical  problem,  and  one  which  cannot  be 
solved,  or  even  approached,  by  the  historical  method. 
What  we  want  to  learn  is,  whether  the  facts,  so  far  as  15 
they  are  known,  afford  evidence  that  things  arose  in 
the  way  described  by  Milton,  or  whether  they  do  not ; 
and,  when  that  question  is  settled,  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  their  origination. 

In  the  second  place,  I  have  not  spoken  of  this  doc- 20 

Here  Professor  Huxley  was  obliged  to  meet  squarely  the  dif¬ 
ficulty  he  avoided  on  p.  69.  Now  that  the  second  hypothesis 
was  to  be  considered,  any  clear-sighted  hearer  must  see  that  the 
testimony  to  be  treated  was  of  two  kinds — testimonial,  from  the 
Bible,  and  circumstantial,  from  Geology.  Therefore,  it  seemed  that  25 
the  speaker  must  consider  the  “  biblical  ”  evidence  here.  This  Pro¬ 
fessor  Huxley  did  frankly,  though  very  deftly,  for  while  explain¬ 
ing  why  he  did  not  speak  of  the  second  hypothesis  as  the  ‘  ‘  biblical, * 
he  made  the  supporters  of  the  second  hypothesis  responsible  for 
so  much  doubt  as  to  the  authenticity  and  the  interpretation  of  3^ 
the  testimonial  evidence  that  it  must  be  ruled  out.  Morever,  he 
gained,  persuasively,  by  making  these  men,  by  his  fine  irony,  a 
little  ridiculous.  If  he  made  the  audience  smile  at  them,  he  had 
already  done  something  to  win  his  hearers  to  his  view. 


ON  EVOLUTION. 


77 


trine  as  the  Biblical  doctrine.  It  is  quite  true  that  per¬ 
sons  as  diverse  in  their  general  views  as  Milton  the 
Protestant  and  the  celebrated  Jesuit  Father  Suarez, 
each  put  upon  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  the  interpre- 
5  tation  embodied  in  Milton’s  poem.  It  is  quite  true 
that  this  interpretation  is  that  which  has  been  instilled 
into  every  one  of  us  in  our  childhood  ;  but  I  do  not  for 
one  moment  venture  to  say  that  it  can  properly  be 
called  the  Biblical  doctrine.  It  is  not  my  business, 
loand  does  not  lie  within  my  competency,  to  say  what 
the  Hebrew  text  does,  and  what  it  does  not  signify  ; 
moreover,  were  I  to  affirm  that  this  is  the  Biblical 
doctrine,  I  should  be  met  by  the  authority  of  many 
eminent  scholars,  to  say  nothing  of  men  of  science, 
15  who,  at  various  times,  have  absolutely  denied  that  any 
such  doctrine  is  to  be  found  in  Genesis.  If  we  are  to 
listen  to  many  expositors  of  no  mean  authority,  we 
must  believe  that  what  seems  so  clearly  defined  in 
Genesis — as  if  very  great  pains  had  been  taken  that 
20  there  should  be  no  possibility  of  mistake — is  not  the 
meaning  of  the  text  at  all.  The  account  is  divided 
into  periods  that  we  may  make  just  as  long  or  as  short 
as  convenience  requires.  We  are  also  to  understand 
that  it  is  consistent  with  the  original  text  to  believe 
25  that  the  most  complex  plants  and  animals  may  have 
been  evolved  by  natural  processes,  lasting  for  mil¬ 
lions  of  years,  out  of  structureless  rudiments.  A  per¬ 
son  who  is  not  a  Hebrew  scholar  can  only  stand  aside 
and  admire  the  marvellous  flexibility  of  a  language 
30  which  admits  of  such  diverse  interpretations.  But 
assuredly,  in  the  face  of  such  contradictions  of 
authority  upon  matters  respecting  which  he  is  incom- 


78 


T.  //.  HUXLEY. 


petent  to  form  any  judgment,  he  will  abstain,  as  I  do, 
from  giving  any  opinion. 

In  the  third  place,  I  have  carefully  abstained  from 
speaking  of  this  as  the  Mosaic  doctrine,  because  we 
are  now  assured  upon  the  authority  of  the  highest  5 
critics,  and  even  of  dignitaries  of  the  Church,  that 
there  is  no  evidence  that  Moses  wrote  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  or  knew  anything  about  it.  You  will  under¬ 
stand  that  I  give  no  judgment — it  would  be  an  impert¬ 
inence  upon  my  part  to  volunteer  even  a  suggestion —  10 
upon  such  a  subject.  But,  that  being  the  state  of 
opinion  among  the  scholars  and  the  clergy,  it  is  well 
for  the  unlearned  in  Hebrew,  lore,  and  for  the  laity,  to 
avoid  entangling  themselves  in  such  a  vexed  question. 
Happily,  Milton  leaves  us  no  excuse  for  doubting  what  15 
he  means,  and  I  shall  therefore  be  safe  in  speaking 
of  the  opinion  in  question  as  the  Miltonic  hypothesis. 

Now  we  have  to  test  that  hypothesis.  For  my  part, 

I  have  no  prejudice  one  way  or  the  other.  If  there  is 
evidence  in  favor  of  this  view,  I  am  burdened  by  no  20 
theoretical  difficulties  in  the  way  of  accepting  it  ;  but 
there  must  be  evidence.  Scientific  men  get  an  awk¬ 
ward  habit — no,  I  won’t  call  it  that,  for  it  is  a  valuable 
habit — of  believing  nothing  unless  there  is  evidence 
for  it  ;  and  they  have  a  way  of  looking  upon  belief  25 
which  is  not  based  upon  evidence,  not  only  as  illogical 
but  as  immoral.  We  will,  if  you  please,  test  this  view 
by  the  circumstantial  evidence  alone  ;  for,  from  what 
I  have  said,  you  will  understand  that  I  do  not  propose 
to  discuss  the  question  of  what  testimonial  evidence  30 
is  to  be  adduced  in  favor  of  it.  If  those  whose  busi¬ 
ness  it  is  to  judge  are  not  at  one  as  to  the  authenticity 


ON  EVOLUTION. 


79 


of  the  only  evidence  of  that  kind  which  is  offered,  nor 
as  to  the  facts  to  which  it  bears  witness,  the  discus¬ 
sion  of  such  evidence  is  superfluous. 

But  I  may  be  permitted  to  regret  this  necessity  of 
5  rejecting  the  testimonial  evidence  the  less,  because 
the  examination  of  the  circumstantial  evidence  leads 
to  the  conclusion,  not  only  that  it  is  incompetent  to 
justify  the  hypothesis,  but  that,  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  is 
contrary  to  the  hypothesis. 

lo  The  considerations  upon  which  I  base  this  conclu¬ 
sion  are  of  the  simplest  possible  character.  The  Mil¬ 
tonic  hypothesis  contains  assertions  of  a  very  definite 
character,  relating  to  the  succession  of  living  forms. 
It  is  stated  that  plants,  for  example,  made  their 
15  appearance  upon  the  third  day,  and  not  before. 
And  you  will  understand  that  what  the  poet  means  by 
plants  are  such  plants  as  now  live,  the  ancestors,  in 
the  ordinary  way  of  propagation  of  like  by  like,  of  the 
trees  and  shrubs  which  flourish  in  the  present  world. 
20  It  must  needs  be  so  ;  for,  if  they  were  different,  either 
the  existing  plants  have  been  the  result  of  a  separate 
origination  since  that  described  by  Milton,  of  which 
we  have  no  record,  nor  any  ground  for  supposition 
that  such  an  occurrence  has  taken  place  ;  or  else  they 
25  have  arisen  by  a  process  of  evolution  from  the  original 
stocks.® 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  clear  that  there  was  no 
animal  life  before  the  fifth  day,  and  that,  on  the  fifth 
day,  aquatic  animals  and  birds  appeared.  And  it  is 
30  further  clear  that  terrestrial  living  things,  other  than 
birds,  made  their  appearance  upon  the  sixth  day,  and 

®  The  use  of  the  dilemma  here  and  on  p.  83  is  very  effective. 


8o 


T.  H.  HUXLEY. 


not  before.  Hence,  it  follows  that,  if,  in  the  large 
mass  of  circumstantial  evidence  as  to  what  really  has 
happened  in  the  past  history  of  the  globe  we  find  indi¬ 
cations  of  the  existence  of  terrestrial  animals,  other 
than  birds,  at  a  certain  period,  it  is  perfectly  certain  5 
that  all  that  has  taken  place  since  that  time  must  be 
referred  to  the  sixth  day. 

In  the  great  Carboniferous  formation,  whence 
America  derives  so  vast  a  proportion  of  her  actual 
and  potential  wealth,  in  the  beds  of  coal  which  have  10 
been  formed  from  the  vegetation  of  that  period,  we 
find  abundant  evidence  of  the  existence  of  terrestrial 
animals.  They  have  been  described,  not  only  by 
European  but  by  your  own  naturalists.  There  are  to 
be  found  numerous  insects  allied  to  our  cockroaches.  15 
There  are  to  be  found  spiders  and  scorpions  of  large 
size,  the  latter  so  similar  to  existing  scorpions  that  it 
requires  the  practised  eye  of  the  naturalist  to  distin¬ 
guish  them.  Inasmuch  as  these  animals  can  be 
proved  to  have  been  alive  in  the  Carboniferous  epoch,  20 
it  is  perfectly  clear  that,  if  the  Miltonic  account  is  to 
be  accepted,  the  huge  mass  of  rocks  extending  from 
the  middle  of  the  Palaeozoic  formations  to  the  upper¬ 
most  members  of  the  series,  must  belong  to  the  day 
which  is  termed  by  Milton  the  sixth.  But,  further,  25 
it  is  expressly  stated  that  aquatic  animals  took  their 
origin  upon  the  fifth  day,  and  not  before  ;  hence,  all 
formations  in  which  remains  of  aquatic  animals  can 
be  proved  to  exist,  and  which  therefore  testify  that 
such  animals  lived  at  the  time  when  these  formations  30 
were  in  course  of  deposition,  must  have  been  depos¬ 
ited  during  or  since  the  period  which  Milton  speaks 


ON  EVOLUTION. 


8i 


of  as  the  fifth  day.  But  there  is  absolutely  no  fossil- 
iferous  formation  in  which  the  remains  of  aquatic 
animals  are  absent.  The  oldest  fossils  in  the  Silurian 
rocks  are  exuviae  of  marine  animals  ;  and  if  the  view 
5  which  is  entertained  by  Principal  Dawson  and  Dr. 
Carpenter  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Eozoon  be  well 
founded,  aquatic  animals  existed  at  a  period  as  far 
antecedent  to  the  deposition  of  the  coal  as  the  coal 
is  from  us  ;  inasmuch  as  the  Eozoon  is  met  with  in 
lo  those  Laurentian  strata  which  lie  at  the  bottom  of 
the  series  of  stratified  rocks.®  Hence  it  follows, 
plainly  enough,  that  the  whole  series  of  stratified 
rocks,  if  they  are  to  be  brought  into  harmony  with 
Milton,  must  be  referred  to  the  fifth  and  sixth  days, 
15  and  that  we  cannot  hope  to  find  the  slightest  trace 
of  the  products  of  the  earlier  days  in  the  geological 
record.  When  we  consider  these  simple  facts,  we  see 
how  absolutely  futile  are  the  attempts  that  have  been 
made  to  draw  a  parallel  between  the  story  told  by  so 
20  much  of  the  crust  of  the  earth  as  is  known  to  us  and 
the  storv  which  Milton  tells.  The  whole  series  of 
fossiliferous  stratified  rocks  must  be  referred  to  the 
last  two  days  ;  and  neither  the  Carboniferous,  nor 
any  other,  formation  can  afford  evidence  of  the  work 
25  of  the  third  day. 

Not  only  is  there  this  objection  to  any  attempt  to 

®  “A  few  years  before  this  address,  Canadian  geologists  gave  the 
name  Eozoon  to  a  certain  aggregate  of  minerals  viewed  by  them 
as  a  fossilized  organic  body  belonging  to  the  Foi'a7ninife7'a. 
30  There  can,  however,  no  longer  be  any  doubt  of  the  inorganic 
nature  of  the  Eozoon.  By  the  geologists  who  named  the  Eozoon, 
it  was  believed  to  be  the  oldest  recognized  form,  to  represent  the 
dawn  of  life.’' — Century  Diet. 


82 


T.  H.  HUXLEY. 


establish  a  harmonv  between  the  Miltonic  account 
and  the  facts  recorded  in  the  fossiliferous  rocks,  but 
there  is  a  further  difficulty.  According  to  the  Mil¬ 
tonic  account,  the  order  in  which  animals  should  have 
made  their  appearance  in  the  stratified  rocks  would  5 
be  this  :  Fishes,  including  the  great  whales,  and 
birds  ;  after  them,  all  varieties  of  terrestrial  animals 
except  birds.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the 
facts  as  we  find  them  ;  we  know  of  not  the  slightest 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  birds  before  the  Jurassic,  10 
or  perhaps  the  Triassic,  formation  ;  while  terrestrial 
animals,  as  we  have  just  seen,  occur  in  the  Carbonif¬ 
erous  rocks. 

If  there  were  any  harmony  between  the  Miltonic 
account  and  the  circumstantial  evidence,  we  ought  to  15 
have  abundant  evidence  of  the  existence  of  birds  in 
the  Carboniferous,  the  Devonian,  and  the  Silurian 
rocks.  I  need  hardly  say  that  this  is  not  the  case, 
and  that  not  a  trace  of  birds  makes  its  appearance 
until  the  far  later  period  which  I  have  mentioned.  20 

And  again,  if  it  be  true  that  all  varieties  of  fishes 
and  the  great  whales,  and  the  like,  made  their  appear¬ 
ance  on  the  fifth  day,  we  ought  to  find  the  remains  of 
these  animals  in  the  older  rocks — in  those  which  were 
deposited  before  the  Carboniferous  epoch.  Fishes  we  25 
do  find,  in  considerable  number  and  variety  ;  but  the 
great  whales  are  absent,  and  the  fishes  are  not  such 
as  now  live.  Not  one  solitary  species  of  fish  now  in 
existence  is  to  be  found  in  the  Devonian  or  Silurian 
formations.  Hence  we  are  introduced  afresh  to  the  30 
dilemma  which  I  have  already  placed  before  you  : 
either  the  animals  which  came  into  existence  on  the 


ox  EVOLUTIOX. 


S3 

fifth  day  were  not  such  as  those  which  are  found  at 
present,  are  not  the  direct  and  immediate  ancestors 
of  those  which  now  exist  ;  in  which  case  either  fresh 
creations  of  which  nothing  is  said,  or  a  process  of 
5  evolution  must  have  occurred  ;  or  else  the  whole  stoiy’ 
must  be  given  up,  as  not  only  devoid  of  any  circum¬ 
stantial  evidence,  but  contrary  to  such  evidence  as 
exists. 

I  placed  before  you  in  a  few  words,  some  little  time 
10  ago,  a  statement  of  the  sum  and  substance  of  Milton’s 
hypothesis.  Let  me  now  try  to  state,  as  briefly,  the 
effect  of  the  circumstantial  evidence  bearing  upon  the 
past  history  of  the  earth  which  is  furnished,  without 
the  possibility  of  mistake,  with  no  chance  of  error  as 
15  to  its  chief  features,  bv  the  stratified  rocks.  What  we 
find  is,  that  the  great  series  of  formations  represents 
a  period  of  time  of  which  our  human  chronologies 
hardly  afford  us  a  unit  of  measure.  I  will  not  pretend 
to  say  how  we  ought  to  estimate  this  time,  in  millions 
20  or  in  billions  of  years.  For  my  purpose,  the  deter¬ 
mination  of  its  absolute  duration  is  wholly  unessential. 
But  that  the  time  was  enormous  there  can  be  no 
question. 

It  results  from  the  simplest  methods  of  interpreta- 
25  tion,  that  leaving  out  of  view  certain  patches  of 
metamorphosed  rocks,  and  certain  volcanic  products, 
all  that  is  now  dry  land  has  once  been  at  the  bottom 
of  the  waters.  It  is  perfectly  certain  that,  at  a  com¬ 
paratively  recent  period  of  the  world’s  history — the 
30  Cretaceous  epoch — none  of  the  great  physical  features 
which  at  present  mark  the  surface  of  the  globe 
existed.  It  is  certain  that  the  Rocky  Mountains  were 


84 


r.  H.  HUXLEY. 


not.  It  is  certain  that  the  Himalaya  Mountains  were 
not.  It  is  certain  that  the  Alps  and  the  Pyrenees  had 
no  existence.  The  evidence  is  of  the  plainest  possi¬ 
ble  character,  and  is  simply  this: — We  find  raised  up 
on  the  flanks  of  these  mountains,  elevated  by  the  5 
forces  of  upheaval  which  have  given  rise  to  them, 
masses  of  Cretaceous  rock  which  formed  the  bottom 
of  the  sea  before  those  mountains  existed.  It  is  there¬ 
fore  clear  that  the  elevatory  forces  which  gave  rise  to 
the  mountains  operated  subsequently  to  the  Cre- 10 
taceous  epoch  ;  and  that  the  mountains  themselves 
are  largely  made  up  of  the  materials  deposited  in  the 
sea  which  once  occupied  their  place.  As  we  go  back 
in  time,  we  meet  with  constant  alternations  of  sea 
and  land,  of  estuary  and  open  ocean  ;  and,  in  cor- 15 
respondence  with  these  alternations,  we  observe  the 
changes  in  the  fauna  and  flora  to  which  I  have 
referred. 

But  the  inspection  of  these  changes  gives  us  no  right 
to  believe  that  there  has  been  any  discontinuity  in  20 
natural  processes.  There  is  no  trace  of  general 
cataclysms,  of  universal  deluges,  or  sudden  de¬ 
structions  of  a  whole  fauna  or  flora.  The  appear¬ 
ances  which  were  formerly  interpreted  in  that  way 
have  all  been  shown  to  be  delusive,  as  our  knowledge  25 
has  increased  and  as  the  blanks  which  formerly  ap¬ 
peared  to  exist  between  the  different  formations  have 
been  filled  up.  That  there  is  no  absolute  break  be¬ 
tween  formation  and  formation,  that  there  has  been 
no  sudden  disappearance  of  all  the  forms  of  life  and  30 
replacement  of  them  by  others,  but  that  changes  have 
gone  on  slowly  and  gradually,  that  one  type  has  died 


ON  EVOLUTION, 


8S 


out  and  another  has  taken  its  place,  and  that  thus,  by 
insensible  degrees,  one  fauna  has  been  replaced  by 
another,  are  conclusions  strengthened  by  constantly 
increasing  evidence.  So  that  within  the  whole  of  the 
5  immense  period  indicated  by  the  fossiliferous  stratified 
rocks,  there  is  assuredly  not  the  slightest  proof  of  any 
break  in  the  uniformity  of  Nature’s  operations,  no 
indication  that  events  have  followed  other  than  a  clear 
and  orderly  sequence. 

lo  That,  I  say,  is  the  natural  and  obvious  teaching  of 
the  circumstantial  evidence  contained  in  the  stratified 
rocks.  I  leave  you  to  consider  how  far,  by  any 
ingenuity  of  interpretation,  by  any  stretching  of  the 
meaning  of  language,  it  can  be  brought  into  harmony 
15  with  the  Miltonic  hypothesis. 


ARGUMENT  IN  GENERAL. 


XorO  lErsfiine. 

Born  1750.  Died  1823. 

SPEECH  IN  BEHALF  OF  LORD  GEORGE  GORDON  WHEN 
INDICTED  FOR  HIGH  TREASON. 

Delivered  before  the  Court  of  the  King^s  Bench ^  February  5,  1781. 

[“  Lord  George  Gordon,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Comm.ons, 
was  a  young  Scottish  nobleman  of  weak  intellect  and  enthusiastic 
feelings.  He  had  been  chosen  president  of  the  Protestant  Asso¬ 
ciation,  whose  object  was  to  procure  the  repeal  of  Sir  George 
Saville's  bill  in  favor  of  the  Catholics.  In  this  capacity,  he 
directed  the  association  to  meet  him  in  St.  George’s  Fields,  and 
proceed  thence  to  the  Parliament  House  with  a  petition  for  the 
repeal  of  the  bill.  Accordingly,  about  forty  thousand  persons  of 
the  middling  classes  assembled  on  Friday,  the  2d  of  June,  1780, 
and  after  forming  a  procession,  moved  forward  till  they  blocked 
up  all  the  avenues  to  the  House  of  Commons.  They  had  no 
arms  of  any  kind,  and  were  most  of  them  orderly  in  their 
conduct,  though  individuals  among  them  insulted  some  members 
of  both  Houses  who  were  passing  into  the  building,  requiring 
them  to  put  blue  cockades  on  their  hats,  and  to  cry  ‘  No 
Popery  !  ’ 

“Lord  George  presented  the  petition,  but  the  House  refused 
to  consider  it  at  that  time,  by  a  vote  of  192  to  6.  The  multitude 
now  became  disorderly,  and  after  the  House  adjourned,  bodies  of 
men  proceeded  to  demolish  the  Catholic  chapels  at  the  residences 
of  the  foreign  ministers.  From  this  moment  the  whole  affair 
changed  its  character.  Desperate  men,  many  of  them  thieves 

86 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


§7 


and  robbers,  took  the  lead.  Not  only  were  Catholic  chapels  set 
on  fire,  but  the  London  prisons  were  broken  open  and  destroyed  ; 
thirty-six  fires  were  blazing  at  one  time  during  the  night.  The 
town  was  for  some  days  completely  in  the  power  of  the  multitude. 
Lord  Mansfield’s  house  was  destroyed  ;  the  breweries  and  dis¬ 
tilleries  were  broken  open,  and  the  mob  became  infuriated  with 
liquor  ;  and  for  a  period  there  was  reason  to  apprehend  that  the 
whole  of  the  metropolis  might  be  made  one  general  scene  of  con¬ 
flagration.  The  military  were  at  last  called  in  from  the  country, 
and,  after  a  severe  conflict,  the  mob  was  put  down  ;  but  not 
until  nearly  five  hundred  persons  had  been  killed  or  wounded, 
exclusive  of  those  who  perished  from  the  effects  of  intoxi¬ 
cation. 

“The  government  had  been  taken  by  surprise.  No  adequate 
provision  was  made  to  guard  against  violence,  and  as  the  riots 
went  on,  all  authority  for  a  time  seemed  to  be  paralyzed  or 
extinct.  When  order  was  at  last  restored,  the  magistrates,  as  is 
common  with  those  who  have  neglected  their  duty,  endeavored  to 
throw  the  blame  on  others — they  resolved  to  make  Lord  George 
Gordon  their  scapegoat.  He  was  accordingly  arraigned  for  high 
treason  ;  and  such  was  the  excitement  of  the  public  mind,  such 
the  eagerness  to  have  someone  punished,  that  he  was  in  immi¬ 
nent  danger  of  being  made  the  victim  of  public  resentment.  It 
was  happy  for  him  that,  in  addition  to  Mr.  (afterward  Lord) 
Kenyon,  his  senior  counsel,  a  man  of  sound  mind,  but  wholly 
destitute  of  eloquence,  he  had  chosen  Mr.  Erskine,  as  a  Scotch¬ 
man,  to  aid  in  his  defense.  It  was  the  means  probably  of  saving 
his  life. 

The  Attorney-General  opened  the  case  in  behalf  of  the  Crown, 
contending  (i)  That  the  prisoner,  in  assembling  the  multitude  round 
the  two  Houses  of  Parliament,  was  guilty  of  high  treason,  if  he  did 
so  with  a  view  to  overawe  and  intimidate  the  Legislature,  and 
enforce  his  purposes  by  numbers  and  violence  (a  doctrine  fully  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  court)  ;  and  (2)  That  the  overt  acts  proved  might 
be  fairly  construed  into  such  a  design,  and  were  the  only  evidence 
by  which  a  traitorous  intention,  in  such  a  case,  could  be  shown. 
When  the  evidence  for  the  Crown  was  received,  Mr.  Kenyon 
addressed  the  jury  in  behalf  of'  Lord  George  Gordon,  but  in  a 


88 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


manner  so  inefficient  that,  when  he  sat  down,  ‘  the  friends 
Lord  George  were  in  an  agony  of  apprehension/  According  to 
the  usual  practice  Mr.  Erskine  should  now  have  followed,  before  the 
examination  of  his  client’s  witnesses.  But  he -adroitly  changed 
the  order,  claiming  as  a  privilege  of  the  prisoner  (for  which  he 
adduced  a  precedent)  to  have  the  evidence  in  his  favor  received  at 
once.  His  object  was,  by  meeting  the  evidence  of  the  Crown 
with  that  of  Lord  George’s  witnesses  as  early  as  possible,  to  open 
a  way  for  being  heard  with  more  favor  by ’the  jury,  and  of  com¬ 
menting  upon  the  evidence  on  both  sides  as  compared  together. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Middleton,  a  member  of  the  Protestant  Asso¬ 
ciation,  swore  that  he  had  watched  the  prisoner’s  conduct,  and 
that  he  appeared  to  be  always  actuated  by  the  greatest  loyalty  to 
the  King  and  attachment  to  the  Constitution — that  his  speeches 
at  the  meetings  of  the  association,  at  Coachmakers’  Hall,  never 
contained  an  expression  tending  directly  or  indirectly  to  a  repeal 
of  the  bill  by  foi'ce — that  he  desired  the  people  not  even  to  carry 
sticks  in  the  procession,  and  begged  that  riotous  persons  might 
be  delivered  to  the  constables.  Mr.  Evans,  an  eminent  surgeon, 
declared  that  he  saw  Lord  George  Gordon  in  the  center  of  one  of 
the  divisions  in  St.  George’s  Fields,  and  that  it  appeared  from  his 
conduct  and  expressions  that  he  wished  and  endeavored  to  pre¬ 
vent  all  disorder.  This  was  confirmed  by  others,  and  it  was 
proved  by  decisive  evidence  that  the  bulk  of  the  people  round  the 
Parliament  House  and  in  the  lobby  were  not  members  of  the 
Association,  but  idlers,  vagabonds,  and  pickpockets,  who  had 
thrust  themselves  in  ;  so  that  the  persons  who  insulted  the  mem¬ 
bers  were  of  a  totally  different  class  from  those  who  formed  the 
original  procession.  The  Earl  of  Lonsdale  swore  that  he  took 
the  prisoner  home  from  the  House  in  his  carriage  ;  that  great 
multitudes  surrounded  Lord  George,  inquiring  the  fate  of  the 
petition  :  that  he  answered  it  was  uncertain,  and  earnestly  en¬ 
treated  them  to  retire  to  their  homes  and  be  quiet. 

“The  evidence  was  not  closed  until  after  midnight,  wffien  Mr. 
Erskine  addressed  the  jury  in  the  following  speech.  The  jury, 
after  being  charged  by  Lord  Mansfield,  withdrew  at  three  o’clock 
in  the  morning,  and  speedily  returned  with  the  verdict — not 
GUILTY  !” — Goodrich.'\ 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


89 


Gentlemen  of  the  Jury:^  Mr.  Kenyon  having 
informed  the  court  that  we  propose  to  call  no  other 
witnesses,  it  is  now  my  duty  to  address  myself  to  you 
as  counsel  for  the  noble  prisoner  at  the  bar,  the  whole 
5  evidence  being  closed.  I  use  the  word  closed.,  because 
it  certainly  is  not  finished,  since  I  have  been  obliged 
to  leave  the  seat  in  which  I  sat,  to  disentangle  myself 
from  the  volumes  of  men’s  names,  which  lay  there 
under  my  feet,  whose  testimony,  had  it  been  necessary 
10  for  the  defense,  would  have  confirmed  all  the  facts 
that  are  already  in  evidence  before  you.^ 

^  The  construction  of  this  speech  is  apparently  very  simple,  but 
it  is  the  simplicity  of  genius,  and  its  apparently  natural  develop¬ 
ment  helped  to  produce  in  the  minds  of  the  jury  the  feeling 
15  Erskine  sought,  that  the  simple,  the  natural,  the  common-sense 
belief  must  be  that  Lord  Gordon  was  an  innocent,  persecuted 
man.  Analysis  of  the  case  had  shown  Lord  Erskine  before  he 
spoke  that  the  whole  case  turned  on  the  definition  of  treason  to 
be  used  in  it  ;  and  about  a  definition  of  it  he  made  his  whole  case 
20  center.  Roughly  the  plan  of  this  simplification  of  a  case  open  to 
all  kinds  of  entanglement, — which  the  prosecution  had  evidently 
been  willing  to  make  obscure, — is  this  :  i.  To  make  the  jury  feel 
the  importance,  the  indispensability  of  a  clear  definition  of 
treason  ;  2.  To  state  clearly  a  definition  that  even  his  opponents 
25  must  accept  ;  3.  To  point  out  under  what  part  of  this  the  prisoner 
might  be  accused,  and  rigorously  excluding  all  other  parts,  to 
make  the  jury  see  that  to  an  application  of  this  to  the  prisoner's 
conduct  the  case  must  be  confined  ;  4.  Using  this  accepted  test,  to 
see  what  bearing  on  it  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution  had  ;  5. 
30  To  apply  this  test  to  the  evidence  for  the  defendant ;  6.  To  recap¬ 
itulate  and  to  close.  The  speech  flows  apparently  spontaneously, 
yet  the  most  careful  analysis  prepared  for  it ;  every  extraneous  idea 
was  excluded  ;  every  sentence  had  its  work  to  do.  If  it  be  the  high¬ 
est  art  that  conceals  art,  this  speech  is  certainly  a  masterpiece. 

35  ^  “  Mr.  Erskine  shows  great  dexterity  in  turning  a  slight  circum- 


90 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


Gentlemen,  I  feel  myself  entitled  to  expect,  both 
from  you  and  from  the  court,  the  greatest  indulgence 
and  attention.  I  am,  indeed,  a  greater  object  of  your 
compassion  than  even  my  noble  friend  whom  I  am 
defending.  He  rests  secure  in  conscious  innocence,  5 
and  in  the  well-placed  assurance  that  it  can  suffer  no 
stain  in  your  hands.^  Not  so  with  me.  I  stand  before 
you  a  troubled,  I  am  afraid  a  guilty  man,  in  having 
presumed  to  accept  of  the  awful  task  which  I  am 
now  called  upon  to  perform — a  task  which  my  learned  lo 

stance  at  the  opening  of  his  speech  into  a  means  of  impressing  the 
jury  from  the  first  with  a  sense  of  his  client’s  innocence.  He  had 
sat  thus  far  in  the  front  row,  with  large  files  of  papers  at  his  feet, 
but  he  now  stepped  back  to  obtain  greater  freedom  of  movement ; 
and  this  he  represents  as  done  to  escape  from  ‘  the  volumes  of  15 
men’s  names  ’  who  stood  ready  to  confirm  the  evidence  in  favor 
of  Lord  Gordon  !  So  the  next  paragraph,  though  in  form  a  plea 
for  indulgence  to  himself  as  a  young  speaker,  is  in  fact  the 
strongest  possible  assumption  of  the  prisoner’s  innocence,  since 
the  guilt  referred  to  consisted  in  his  venturing  to  endanger,  by  his  20 
inexperience,  the  cause  of  one  who  stood  secure  himself  ‘in 
conscious  innocence.’  There  is  hardly  anything  for  which  Mr. 
Erskine  deserves  more  to  be  studied,  than  his  thus  making  every 
circumstance  conspire  to  produce  the  desired  impression.  All  is 
so  easy  and  natural  that  men  never  think  of  it  as  the  result  of  25 
design  or  premeditation,  and  here  lies  his  consummate  skill  as  an 
advocate.” — Goodrich. 

^  The  persuasive  appeals  in  this  speech  are  subtly  handled. 
Lord  Erskine  does  not  once  make  a  mere  appeal  to  the  emotions. 
When,  here,  he  pleads  for  sympathy  as  inexperienced,  or,  on 
P-  130,  gracefully  compliments  Lord  Mansfield,  his  words  subserve 
a  second  purpose.  The  plea  goes  far  to  establish  an  assumption 
of  the  innocence  of  Lord  George  Gordon  ;  the  compliment  makes 
a  proof  of  his  innocence.  As  is  pointed  out  later,  the  omission 
at  the  end  of  the  speech  of  any  emotional  appeal  is  far  stronger 
than  any  appeal  could  have  been. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


91 


friend  who  spoke  before  me,  though  he  has  justly 
risen,  by  extraordinary  capacity  and  experience,  to 
the  highest  rank  in  his  profession,  has  spoken  of  with 
that  distrust  and  diffidence  which  becomes  every 
5  Christian  in  a  cause  of  blood.  If  Mr.  Kenyon  has 
such  feelings,  think  what  mine  must  be.  Alas  !  gen¬ 
tlemen,  who  am  I  ?  A  young  man  of  little  experience, 
unused  to  the  bar  of  criminal  courts,  and  sinking 
under  the  dreadful  consciousness  of  my  defects. 
10  I  have,  however,  this  consolation,  that  no  ignorance 
nor  inattention  on  my  part  can  possibly  prevent  you 
from  seeing,  under  the  direction  of  the  Judges,  that 
the  Crown  has  established  no  case  of  treason. 

Gentlemen,  I  did  expect  that  the  Attorney-Gen- 
15  eral,  in  opening  a  great  and  solemn  state  prosecu¬ 
tion,  would  have  at  least  indulged  the  advocates  for 
the  prisoner  with  his  notions  on  the  law,  as  applied 
to  the  case  before  you,  in  less  general  terms. It  is  very 
common,  indeed,  in  little  civil  actions,  to  make  such 
20  obscure  introductions  by  way  of  t7‘ap.  But  in  crim¬ 
inal  cases  it  is  unusual  and  unbecoming  ;  because  the 
right  of  the  Crown  to  reply,  even  where  no  witnesses 
are  called  by  the  prisoner,  gives  it  thereby  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  replying  without  having  given  scope  for 
25  observations  on  the  principles  of  the  opening,  with 
which  the  reply  must  be  consistent. 

^  The  reader  cannot  fail  to  remark  how  admirably  one  thought 
grows  out  of  another  in  the  transition,  all  of  them  important  and 
all  preparing  the  mind  to  be  deeply  interested  in  the  discussion  of 
30  the  subject  to  which  it  leads,  the  nature  of  high  treason.  The 
same  characteristic  runs  throughout  the  whole  speech.” — Good' 
rich.  ' 


92 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


One  observation  he  has,  however,  made  on  the 
subject,  in  the  truth  of  which  I  heartily  concur,  viz., 
that  the  crime  of  which  the  noble  person  at  your  bar 
stands  accused,  is  the  very  highest  and  most  atrocious 
that  a  member  of  civil  life  can  possibly  commit ;  be-  5 
cause  it  is  not,  like  all  other  crimes,  merely  an  injury 
to  society  from  the  breach  of  some  of  its  reciprocal 
relations,  but  is  an  attempt  utterly  to  dissolve  and 
destroy  society  altogether. 

In  nothing,  therefore,  is  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  10 
our  laws  so  strongly  and  eminently  manifested  as  in 
the  rigid,  accurate,  cautious,  explicit,  unequivocal 
definition  of  what  shall  constitute  this  high  offense. 
For,  high  treason  consisting  in  the  breach  and  dis¬ 
solution  of  that  allegiance  which  binds  society  to- 15 
gether,  if  it  were  left  ambiguous,  uncertain,  or  unde¬ 
fined,  all  the  other  laws  established  for  the  personal 
security  of  the  subject  would  be  utterly  useless  ;  since 
this  offense,  which,  from  its  nature,  is  so  capable  of 
being  created  and  judged  of  by  the  rules  of  political  20 
expediency  on  the  spur  of  the  occasion,  would  be 
a  rod  at  will  to  bruise  the  most  virtuous  members 
of  the  community,  whenever  virtue  might  become 
troublesome  or  obnoxious  to  a  bad  government. 

Injuries  to  the  persons  and  properties  of  our  neigh-  25 
bors,  considered  as  individuals,  which  are  the  subjects 
of  all  other  criminal  prosecutions,  are  *not  only 
capable  of  greater  precision,  but  the  powers  of  the 
state  can  be  but  rarely  interested  in  straining  them 
beyond  their  legal  interpretation.  But  if  treason,  30 
where  the  government  is  directly  offended,  were  left 
to  the  judgment  of  its  ministers,  without  any  bounda- 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


93 


ries — nay,  without  the  most  broad,  distinct,  and  in¬ 
violable  boundaries  marked  out  by  the  law — there 
could  be  no  public  freedom.  The  condition  of  an 
Englishman  would  be  no  better  than  a  slave’s  at  the 
5  foot  of  a  Sultan  ;  since  there  is  little  difference 
whether  a  man  dies  by  the  stroke  of  a  saber,  without 
the  forms  of  a  trial,  or  by  the  most  pompous  cere¬ 
monies  of  justice,  if  the  crime  could  be  made  at 
pleasure  by  the  state  to  fit  the  fact  that  was  to  be 
10  tried.  Would  to  God,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that 
this  were  an  observation  of  theory  alone,  and  that  the 
page  of  our  history  was  not  blotted  with  so  many 
melancholy,  disgraceful  proofs  of  its  truth !  But 
these  proofs,  melancholy  and  disgraceful  as  they  are, 
15  have  become  glorious  monuments  of  the  wisdom  of 
our  fathers,  and  ought  to  be  a  theme  of  rejoicing  and 
emulation  to  us.  For,  from  the  mischiefs  constantly 
arising  to  the  state  from  every  extension  of  the  ancient 
law  of  treason,  the  ancient  law  of  treason  has  been 
20  always  restored,  and  the  Constitution  at  different 
periods  washed  clean;  though,  unhappily,  with  the 
blood  of  oppressed  and  innocent  men. 

I.  When  I  speak  of  the  ancient  law  of  treason,  I 
mean  the  venerable  statute  of  King  Edward  the  Third, 
25  on  which  the  indictment  you  are  now  trying  is  framed 
— a  statute  made,  as  its  preamble  sets  forth,  for  the 
more  precise  definition  of  this  crime,  which  has  not, 
by  the  common  law,  been  sufficiently  explained  ;  and 
consisting  of  different  and  distinct  members,  the  plain 
30  unextended  letter  of  which  was  thought  to  be  a  suffi¬ 
cient  protection  to  the  person  and  honor  of  the  Sover¬ 
eign,  and  an  adequate  security  to  the  laws  committed 


94 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


to  his  execution.  I  shall  mention  only  two  of  the 
number,  the  others  not  being  in  the  remotest  degree 
applicable  to  the  present  accusation.^ 

(1)  To  compass  or  imagine  the  death  of  the  King  : 
such  imagination  or  purpose  of  the  mind  (visible  only  5 
to  its  great  Author)  being  manifested  by  some  open 
act ;  an  institution  obviously  directed,  not  only  to  the 
security  of  his  natural  person,  but  to  the  stability  of 
the  government,  since  the  life  of  the  Prince  is  so  in¬ 
terwoven  with  the  Constitution  of  the  state,  that  an  10 
attempt  to  destroy  the  one  is  justly  held  to  be  rebel¬ 
lious  conspiracy  against  the  other. 

(2)  (Which  is  the  crime  charged  in  the  indictment) 

To  levy  war  against  him  in  his  realm  :  a  term  that  one 
would  think  could  require  no  explanation,  nor  admit  i5 
of  any  ambiguous  construction,  among  men  who  are 
willing  to  read  laws  according  to  the  plain  significa¬ 
tion  of  the  language  in  which  they  are  written  ;  but 
which  has,  nevertheless,  been  an  abundant  source  of 
that  constructive  cavil  which  this  sacred  and  valuable  20 
act  was  made  expressly  to  prevent.  The  real  mean¬ 
ing  of  this  branch  of  it,  as  it  is  bottomed  in  policy, 
reason,  and  justice  ;  as  it  is  ordained  in  plain,  unam¬ 
biguous  words  ;  as  it  is  confirmed  by  the  precedents 
of  justice,  and  illustrated  by  the  writings  of  the  great  25 

In  this  statement  of  the  law  of  treason,  perfectly  fair  and 
accurate  as  it  is,  there  is  one  thing  which  marks  the  consummate 
skill  of  Mr.  Erskine.  He  shapes  it  throughout  with  a  distinct 
reference  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  as  they  were  afterward  to  come 
out  in  evidence.  The  points  made  most  prominent  are  the  points  30 
he  had  occasion  afterward  to  use.  Thus  the  jury  were  prepared, 
without  knowing  it,  to  look  at  the  evidence  under  aspects  favorable 
to  the  prisoner.*’ — Goodrich. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


95 


lights  of  the  law  in  different  ages  of  our  history,  I 
shall,  before  I  sit  down,  impress  upon  your  minds  as  a 
safe,  unerring  standard  by  which  to  measure  the  evi¬ 
dence  you  have  heard.  At  present  I  shall  only  say, 
5  that  far  and  wide  as  judicial  decisions  have  strained 
the  construction  of  levying  war  beyond  the  warrant  of 
the  statute,  to  the  discontent  of  some  of  the  greatest 
ornaments  of  the  profession,  they  hurt  not  me.  As  a 
citizen  I  may  disapprove  of  them,  but  as  advocate  for 
lothe  noble  person  at  your  bar,  I  need  not  impeach  their 
authority.  For  none  of  them  have  said  more  than 
this,  ‘‘  that  war  may  be  levied  against  the  King  in  his 
realm,  not  only  by  an  insurrection  to  change  or  to 
destroy  the  fundamental  Constitution  of  the  govern- 
15  ment  itself  by  rebellious  war  ;  but,  by  the  same  war, 
to  endeavor  to  suppress  the  execution  of  the  laws  it 
has  enacted,  or  to  violate  and  overbear  the  protection 
they  afford,  not  to  individuals  (which  is  a  private 
wrong)  but  to  any  general  class  or  description  of  the 
20  community,  hy premeditated.^  open  acts  of  violence^  hostil¬ 
ity^  and  forced 

Gentlemen,  I  repeat  these  words,  and  call  solemnly 
on  the  judges  to  attend  to  what  I  say,  and  to  contra¬ 
dict  me  if  I  mistake  the  law,  By  premeditated.^  open  acts 
25  of  violence hostility a7td force  f  nothing  equivocal,  noth¬ 
ing  ambiguous,  no  intimidations  or  overawings,  which 
signify  nothing  precise  or  certain  (because  what 
frightens  one  man  or  set  of  men  may  have  no  effect 
upon  another),  but  that  which  cojnpels  a7id  coerces — 
30  open  violence  and  force. 

Gentlemen,  this  is  not  only  the  whole  text  ;  but  I 
submit  it  10  the  learned  judges,  under  whose  correc- 


96 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


tion  I  am  happy  to  speak,  an  accurate  explanation  of 
the  statute  of  treason,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  the  pres¬ 
ent  subject,  taken  in  its  utmost  extent  of  judicial  con¬ 
struction  ;  and  which  you  cannot  but  see,  not  only  in  its 
letter,  but  in  its  most  strained  signification,  is  confined  5 
to  acts  which  Unmediately^  openly^  and  unambiguously 
strike  at  the  very  root  and  being  of  government,  and 
not  to  any  other  offenses,  however  injurious  to  its 
peace. 

Such  were  the  boundaries  of  high  treason  marked  lo 
out  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Third  ;  and  as  often 
as  the  vices  of  bad  princes,  assisted  by  weak,  submis¬ 
sive  Parliaments,  extended  state  offenses  beyond  the 
strict  letter  of  that  act,  so  often  the  virtue  of  better 
princes  and  wiser  Parliaments  brought  them  back  ^5 
again.  A  long  list  of  new  treasons,  accumulated  in 
the  wretched  reign  of  Richard  the  Second,  from  which 
(to  use  the  language  of  the  act  that  repealed  them)  “no 
man  knew  what  to  do  or  say  for  doubt  of  the  pains  of ' 
death,’'  were  swept  away  in  the  first  year  of  Henry  the  20 
Fourth,  his  successor  ;  and  many  more,  which  had 
again  sprung  up  in  the  following  distracted,  arbitrary 
reigns,  putting  tumults  and  riots  on  a  footing  with 
armed  rebellion,  were  again  leveled  in  the  first  year 
of  Queen  Mary,  and  the  statute  of  Edward  made  once  25 
more  the  standard  of  treasons.  The  acts,  indeed,  for 
securing  his  present  Majesty’s  illustrious  House  from 
the  machinations  of  those  very  Papists,  who  are  now 
so  highly  in  favor,  have  since  that  time  been  added  to 
the  list.  But  these  not  being  applicable  to  the  pres- 30 
ent  case,  the  ancient  statute  is  still  our  only  guide  ; 
which  is  so  plain  and  simple  in  its  object,  so  explicit 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


97 


and  correct  in  its  terms,  as  to  leave  no  room  for  in¬ 
trinsic  error  ;  and  the  wisdom  of  its  authors  has  shut 
the  door  against  all  extension  of  its  plain  letter  ;  de¬ 
claring,  in  the  very  body  of  the  act  itself,  that  nothing 
5  out  of  that  plain  letter  should  be  brought  within  the 
pale  of  treason  by  infereiice  or  construction.,  but  that, 
if  any  such  cases  happened,  they  should  be  referred 
to  the  Parliament. 

This  wise  restriction  has  been  the  subject  of  much 
10  just  eulogium  by  all  the  most  celebrated  writers  on 
the  criminal  law  of  England.  Lord  Coke  says  the 
Parliament  that  made  it  was  on  that  account  called 
Benedictwn,  or  Blessed  ;  and  the  learned  and  virtuous 
Judge  Hale,  a  bitter  en^my  and  opposer  of  construc- 
'15  tive  treason,  speaks  of  this  sacred  institution  with 
that  enthusiasm  which  it  cannot  but  inspire  in  the 
breast  of  every  lover  of  the  just  privileges  of  mankind. 

Gentlemen,  in  these  mild  days,  when  juries  are  so 
free  and  judges  so  independent,  perhaps  all  these  ob- 
2oservations  might  have  been  spared  as  unnecessary. 
But  they  can  do  no  harm  ;  and  this  history  of  treason, 
so  honorable  to  England,  cannot  (even  imperfectly  as 
I  have  given  it)  be  unpleasant  to  Englishmen.  At  all 
events,  it  cannot  bethought  an  inapplicable  introduc- 
25  tion  to  saying  that  Lord  George  Gordon,  who  stands 
before  you  indicted  for  that  crime,  is  not,  cannot  be 
guilty  of  it,  unless  he  has  levied  war  against  the  King 
in  his  realm,  contrary  to  the  plain  letter,  spirit,  and 
intention  of  the  act  of  the  twenty-fifth  of  Edward  the 
30  Third — to  be  extended  by  no  nev/  or  occasional  con¬ 
struction,  to  be  strained  by  no  fancied  analogies,  to  be 
measured  by  no  rules  of 'political  expediency,  to  be 


98 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


judged  of  by  no  theory,  to  be  determined  by  the  wis¬ 
dom  of  no  individual,  however  wise,  but  to  be  ex¬ 
pounded  by  the  simple,  genuine  letter  of  the  law. 

Gentlemen,  the  only  overt  act  charged  in  the  indict¬ 
ment,  is  the  assembling  the  multitude,  which  we  all  5 
of  us  remember  went  up  with  the  petition  of  the  As¬ 
sociated  Protestants,  on  the  second  day  of  last  June. 

In  addressing  myself  to  a  humane  and  sensible  jury 
of  Englishmen,  sitting  in  judgment  on  the  life  of  a 
fellow-citizen,  more  especially  under  the  direction  of  10 
a  court  so  filled  as  this  is,  I  trust  I  need  not  remind 
you  that  the  purposes  of  that  multitude,  as  origmally 
assembled  on  that  day,  and  the  purposes  and  acts  of 
him  who  assembled  them,  are  the  sole  object  of  in¬ 
vestigation.®  All  the  dismal  consequences  which  fol- 15 
lowed,  and  which  naturally  link  themselves  with  this 
subject  in  the  firmest  minds,  must  be  altogether  cut 
off  and  abstracted  from  your  attention,  further  than 
the  evidence  warrants  their  admission.  If  the  evi¬ 
dence  had  been  co-extensive  with  these  consequences  ;  20 
if  it  had  been  proved  that  the  same  multitude,  under 
the  direction  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  had  afterward 
attacked  the  Bank,  broke  open  the  prisons,  and  set 
London  in  a  conflagration,  I  should  not  now  be  ad¬ 
dressing  you.  Do  me  the  justice  to  believe  that  I  am  25 
neither  so  foolish  as  to  imagine  I  could  have  defended 
him,  nor  so  profligate  to  wish  it  if  I  could.  But  when  it 
has  appeared,  not  only  by  the  evidence  in  the  cause,  but 

•  A  reader  should  note  the  insistence  throughout  of  Lord 
Erskine  that  the  idea  he  wishes  to  bring  out,  and  that  idea  only, 
shall  be  considered,  and  the  firmness  with  which  the  argument  is 
kept  from  wandering  to  side  issues. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


99 


by  the  evidence  of  the  thing  itself — by  the  issues  of  life, 
which  may  be  called  the  evidence  of  Heaven — that 
these  dreadful  events  were  either  entirely  unconnected 
with  the  assembling  of  that  multitude  to  attend  the 
5  petition  of  the  Protestants,  or,  at  the  very  worst,  the 
unforeseen,  undesigned,  unabetted,  and  deeply  re¬ 
gretted  consequences  of  it,  I  confess  the  seriousness 
and  solemnity  of  this  trial  sink  and  dwindle  away. 
Only  abstract  from  your  minds  all  that  misfortune, 
10  accident,  and  the  wickedness  of  others  have  brought 
upon  the  scene,  and  the  cause  requires  no  advocate. 
When  I  say  that  it  requires  no  advocate,  I  mean  that 
it  requires  no  argument  to  screen  it  from  the  guilt  of 
treason.  For  though  I  am  perfectly  convinced  of  the 
15  purity  of  my  noble  friend’s  intentions,  yet  I  am  not 
bound  to  defend  his  prudence,  nor  to  set  it  up  as  a 
pattern  for  imitation  :  since  you  are  not  trying  him  for 
imprudence,  for  indiscreet  zeal,  or  for  want  of  foresight 
and  precaution,  but  for  a  deliberate  and  and  malicious 
20  predetermination  to  overpower  the  laws  and  govern¬ 
ment  of  his  country,  by  hostile,  rebellious  force. 

The  indictment,  therefore,  first  charges  that  the 
multitude  assembled  on  the  2d  of  June  “were  armed, 
and  arrayed  in  a  warlike  manner  ”  ;  which,  indeed 
25  if  it  had  omitted  to  charge,  we  should  not  have 
troubled  you  with  any  defense  at  all,  because  no  judg¬ 
ment  could  have  been  given  on  so  defective  an  indict¬ 
ment.  For  the  statute  never  meant  to  put  an  unarmed 
assembly  of  citizens  on  a  footing  with  armed  rebellion  ; 
30  and  the  crime,  whatever  it  is,  must  always  appear  on 
the  record  to  warrant  the  judgment  of  the  court. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  it  has  been  held  to  be  matter 


lOO 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


of  evidence,  and  dependent  on  circumstances,  what 
numbers,  or  species  of  equipment  and  order,  though 
not  the  regular  equipment  and  order  of  soldiers,  shall 
constitute  an  army,  so  as  to  maintain  the  averment  in 
the  indictment  of  a  warlike  array  ;  and,  likewise,  what  - 
kind  of  violence,  though  not  pointed  at  the  King’s 
person,  or  the  existence  of  the  government,  shall  be 
construed  to  be  war  against  the  King.  But  as  it  has 
never  yet  been  maintained  in  argument,  in  any  court 
of  the  kingdom,  or  even  speculated  upon  in  theory,  lo 
that  a  multitude,  without  either  weapons  offensive  or 
defensive  of  any  sort  or  kind,  and  yet  not  supplying 
the  want  of  them  by  such  acts  of  violence  as  multi¬ 
tudes  sufficiently  great  can  achieve  without  them,  was 
a  hostile  army  within  the  statute  ;  as  it  has  never  been  i5 
asserted,  by  the  wildest  adventurer  in  constructive 
treason,  that  a  multitude,  armed  with  nothing,  threat¬ 
ening  nothing,  and  doing  nothing,  was  an  army  levy¬ 
ing  war  ;  I  am  entitled  to  say  that  the  evidence  does 
not  support  the  first  charge  in  the  indictment;  but  20 
that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  manifestly  false — false  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Crown,  which  prosecutes  it —  false 
in  the  knowledge  of  every  man  in  London,  who  was  not 
bed-ridden  on  Friday,  the  2d  of  June,  and  who  saw  the 
peaceable  demeanor  of  the  Associated  Protestants.  25 
But  you  will  hear,  no  doubt,  from  the  Solicitor- 
General  (for  they  have  saved  all  their  intelligence  for 
the  reply)  that  fury  supplies  arms  ;  furor  arma  miti- 
zstrat ;  and  the  case  of  Damaree  ^  will,  I  suppose,  be 

‘'In  this  case  a  mob  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  30 
all  the  Protestant  Dissenting  meeting-houses,  and  actually  pulled 
down  two. — 8  State  Trials,  218.” — Goodrich. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


lOI 


referred  to  ;  where  the  people  assembled  had  no  ban¬ 
ners  or  arms,  but  only  clubs  and  bludgeons  ;  yet  the 
ringleader,  who  led  them  on  to  mischief,  was  adjudged 
to  be  guilty  of  high  treason  for  levying  war.  This 
5  judgment  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  impeach,  for  I  have 
no  time  for  disgression  to  points  that  do  not  press 
upon  me.  In  the  case  of  Damaree,  the  mob,  though 
not  regularly  armed,  were  provided  with  such  weapons 
as  best  suited  their  mischievous  designs.  Their  de- 
10  signs  were,  besides,  open  and  avowed,  and  all  the  mis¬ 
chief  was  done  that  could  have  been  accomplished,  if 
they  had  been  in  the  completest  armor.  They  burned 
Dissenting  meeting-houses  protected  by  law,  and 
Damaree  was  taken  at  their  head,  in  flagrante  delicto 
15  [in  the  crime  itself],  with  a  torch  in  his  hand,  not  only 
in  the  very  act  of  destroying  one  of  them,  but  leading 
on  his  followers,  in  person,,  to  the  avowed  destruction 
of  all  the  rest.  There  could,  therefore,  be  no  doubt 
of  his  purpose  and  intention,  nor  any  great  doubt  that 
20  the  perpetration  of  such  purpose  was,  from  its  gener¬ 
ality,  high  treason,  if  perpetrated  by  such  a  force  as 
distinguishes  a  felonious  riot  from  a  treasonable  levy¬ 
ing  of  war.®  The  principal  doubt,  therefore,  in  that 
case  was,  whether  such  an  unarmed,  riotous  force  was 
•2.^  war,  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute  ;  and  on  that 
point  very  learned  men  have  differed  ;  nor  shall  I  at¬ 
tempt  to  decide  between  them,  because  in  this  one 
point  they  all  agree.  Gentlemen,  I  beseech  you  to  at- 

To  constitute  a  treasonable  levying  of  war  there  must  be  an 
30  insurrection  ;  there  must  be  force  accompanying  that  insurrection  ; 
and  it  must  be  for  an  object  of  a  general  nature.  Regina  v. 
Frost,  9  Carrington  and  Payne,  129.” — Goodrich. 


102 


LORD  ERSKUSTE. 


tend  to  me  here.  I  say  on  this  point  they  all  agree, 
that  it  is  the  intentioji  of  assembling  them  which  forms 
the  guilt  of  treason.  I  will  give  you  the  words  of 
high  authority,  the  learned  Foster,  whose  private 
opinions  will,  no  doubt,  be  pressed  upon  you  as  a  5 
doctrine  and  law,  and  which,  if  taken  together,  as  all 
opinions  ought  to  be,  and  not  extracted  in  smuggled 
sentences  to  serve  a  shallow  trick,  I  am  contented  to 
consider  as  authority. 

That  great  judge,  immediately  after  supporting  the  10 
case  of  Damaree,  as  a  levying  war  within  the  statute, 
against  the  opinion  of  Hale  in  a  similar  case,  namely, 
the  destruction  of  bawdy-houses,  which  happened  in 
his  time,  says, The  true  criterion,  therefore,  seems 
to  be — Quo  animo  did  the  parties  assemble  ? — with  15 
what  intention  did  they  meet  ?  ”  On  that  issue,  then, 
in  which  1  am  supported  by  the  whole  body  of  the 
criminal  law  of  England,  concerning  which  there*are 
no  practical  precedents  of  the  courts  that  clash,  nor 
even  abstract  opinions  of  the  closet  that  differ,  I  come  20 
forth  with  boldness  to  meet  the  Crown.  For,  even 
supposing  that  peaceable  multitude — though  not  hos- 
tilely  arrayed — though  without  one  species  of  weapon 
among  them — though  assembled  without  plot  or  dis¬ 
guise  by  a  public  advertisement,  exhorting,  nay,  com-  25 
manding  peace,  and  inviting  the  magistrates  to  be 
present  to  restore  it,  if  broken — though  composed  of 
thousands  who  are  now  standing  around  you,  unim¬ 
peached  and  unreproved,  yet  who  are  all  principals  in 
treason,  if  such  assembly  was  treason  ;  supposing,  T  30 
say,  this  multitude  to  be,  nevertheless,  an  army  within 
the  statute,  still  the  great  question  would  remain  be- 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON.  103 

hind,  on  which  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused 
must  singly  depend,  and  which  it  is  your  exclusive 
province  to  determine,  namely,  whether  they  were 
assembled  by  my  noble  client  for  the  traitorous  pur- 
5  pose  charged  in  the  indictment  ?  For  war  must  not 
only  be  levied,  but  it  must  be  levied  against  the  King 
in  his  realm  ;  i.  e.,  either  directly  against  his  person 
to  alter  the  Constitution  of  the  government,  of  which 
he  is  the  head,  or  to  suppress  the  laws  committed  to  his 
10  execution  by  rebellious  force.  You  must  find  that  Lord 
George  Gordon  assembled  these  men  with  that  trai¬ 
torous  intention.  You  must  find  not  merely  a  riotous, 
illegal  petitioning — not  a  tumultuous,  indecent  im¬ 
portunity  to  influence  Parliament,  not  the  compulsion 
15  of  motive,  from  seeing  so  great  a  body  of  people 
united  in  sentiment  and  clamorous  supplication — but 
the  absolute,  unequivocal  compulsion  of  force,  from 
the  hostile  acts  of  numbers  united  in  rebellious  con¬ 
spiracy  and  arms. 

20  This  is  the  issue  you  are  to  try,  for  crimes  of  all 
denominations  consist  wholly  in  the  purpose  of  the 
human  will  producing  the  act.  Actus  non  facit 
reum  nisi  7nens  sit  reaA  The  act  does  not  constitute 
guilt,  unless  the  mindh^  guilty.  This  is  the  great  text 
25  from  which  the  whole  moral  of  penal  justice  is  de¬ 
duced.  It  stands  at  the  top  of  the  criminal  page, 
throughout  all  the  volumes  of  our  humane  and  sensi¬ 
ble  laws,  and  Lord  Chief  Justice  Coke,  whose  chapter 
on  this  crime  is  the  most  authoritative  and  masterly 
30  of  all  his  valuable  works,  ends  almost  every  sentence 
with  an  emphatical  repetition  of  it. 

The  indictment  must  charge  an  open  act.,  because 


104 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


the  purpose  of  the  mind,  which  is  the  object  of  trial, 
can  only  be  known  by  actions.  Or,  again  to  use  the 
words  of  Foster,  who  has  ably  and  accurately  ex¬ 
pressed  it,  ^‘the  traitorous  purpose  is  the  treason  ;  the 
overt  act,  the  means  made  use  of  to  effectuate  the  5 
intentions  of  the  heart.”  But  why  should  I  borrow 
the  language  of  Foster,  or  of  any  other  man,  when 
the  language  of  the  indictment  itself  is  lying  before 
our  eyes?  What  does  it  say?  Does  it  directly 
charge  the  overt  act  as  in  itself  constituting  the  10 
crime  ?  No  ;  it  charges  that  the  prisoner  maliciously 
and  traitorously  did  compass^  imagi?ie,  a?id  intend  to 
raise  a?id  levy  war  and  rebellion  against  the  Kvig  ”y  this 
is  the  malice  prepense  of  treason  ;  and  that  to  fulfill 
and  bring  to  effect  such  traitorous  conipassings  and  vi-  15 
tentio7is^  he  did,  on  the  day  mentioned  in  the  indict¬ 
ment,  actually  assemble  them,  and  levy  war  and 
rebellion  against  the  King.  Thus  the  law,  which  is 
made  to  correct  and  punish  the  wickedness  of  the 
heart,  and  not  the  unconscious  deeds  of  the  body,  20 
goes  up  to  the  fountain  of  human  agency,  and  arraigns 
the  lurking  mischief  of  the  soul,  dragging  it  to  light 
by  the  evidence  of  open  acts.  The  hostile  mind  is 
the  crime  ;  and,  therefore,  unless  the  matters  that  are 
in  evidence  before  you  do,  beyond  all  doubt  or  pos-  25 
sibility  of  error,  convince  you  that  the  prisoner  is  a 
determined  traitor  in  his  hearty  he  is  not  guilty. 

It  is  the  same  principle  which  creates  all  the  various 
degrees  of  homicide,  from  that  which  is  excusable  to 
the  malignant  guilt  of  murder.  The  fact  is  the  same  30 
in  all.  The  death  of  the  man  is  the  imputed  crime  ; 
but  the  i?ite7ition  makes  all  the  difference  ;  and  he  who 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


1^5 

killed  him  is  pronounced  a  murderer — a  simple  felon 
— or  only  an  unfortunate  man,  as  the  circumstances, 
by  which  his  mind  has  been  deciphered  to  the  jury, 
show  it  to  have  been  cankered  by  deliberate  wicked- 
5  ness  or  stirred  up  by  sudden  passions. 

Here  an  immense  multitude  was,  beyond  all  doubt, 
assembled  on  the  2d  of  June.  But  whether  he 
that  assembled  them  be  guilty  of  high  treason,  of  a 
high  misdemeanor,  or  only  of  a  breach  of  the  act  of 
10  King  Charles  the  Second®  against  tumultuous  peti¬ 
tioning  (if  such  an  act  still  exists),  depends  wholly 
upon  the  evidence  of  his  purpose  in  assembling  them, 
to  be  gathered  by  you,  and  by  you  alone,  from  the 
whole  tenor  of  his  conduct  ;  and  to  be  gathered,  not 
15  by  inference,  or  probability,  or  reasonable  presump¬ 
tion,  but,  in  the  words  of  the  act,  provably ;  that  is,  in 
the  full,  unerring  force  of  demonstration.  You  are 
called,  upon  your  oaths,  to  say,  not  whether  Lord 
George  Gordon  assembled  the  multitudes  in  the  place 
20  charged  in  the  indictment,  for  that  is  not  denied  ;  but 

13  Car.  II.,  st.  i,  c.  5,  passed  in  consequence  of  the 
tumults  on  the  opening  of  the  memorable  Parliament  of  1640,  it 
is  provided  that  no  petition  to  the  King  or  either  House  of  Parlia¬ 
ment,  for  any  alteration  in  Church  or  State,  shall  be  signed  by 
25  above  twenty  persons,  unless  the  matter  thereof  be  approved  by 
three  justices  of  the  peace,  or  the  major  part  of  the  grand  jury  in 
the  county  ;  and  in  London  by  the  Lord  Mayor,  Aldermen,  and 
Common  Council  :  nor  shall  any  petition  be  presented  by  more 
than  ten  persons  at  a  time.  But  tinder  these  regulations,  it  is 
30  declared  by  the  Bill  of  Rights,  i  W.  and  M.,  st.  2,  c.  2,  that  the 
subject  hath  a  right  to  petition.  Lord  Mansfield  told  the  jury 
that  the  court  were  clearly  of  opinion  that  this  statute,  13  Car.  II., 
was  not  in  any  degree  affected  by  the  Bill  of  Rights,  but  was 
still  in  force.  Doug.,  571.” — Goodrich, 


io6 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


whether  it  appears,  by  the  facts  produced  in  evidence 
for  the  Crown  when  confronted  with  the  proofs  which 
we  have  laid  before  you,  that  he  assembled  them  in 
hostile  array  and  with  a  hostile  mind,  to  take  the  lav;s 
into  his  own  hands  by  main  force,  and  to  dissolve  the  5 
Constitution  of  the  government,  unless  his  petition 
should  be  listened  to  by  Parliament. 

That  your  exclusive  province  to  determine.  The 
court  can  only  tell  you  what  acts  the  law,  in  its  gen¬ 
eral  theory,  holds  to  be  high  treason,  on  the  general  10 
assumption  that  such  acts  proceed  from  traitorous  pur¬ 
poses.  But  they  must  leave  it  to  your  decision,  and 
\.o  yours  alone,  whether  the  acts  proved  appear,  in  the 
present  instance,  under  all  the  circumstances,  to  have 
arisen  from  the  causes  which  form  the  essence  of  this  15 
high  crime. 

Gentlemen,  you  have  now  heard  the  law  of  treason  ; 
first,  in  the  abstract,  and  secondly,  as  it  applies  to  the 
general  features  of  the  case  ;  and  you  have  heard  it 
with  as  much  sincerity  as  if  I  had  addressed  you  upon  20 
my  oath  from  the  bench  where  the  judges  sit.  I  de¬ 
clare  to  you  solemnly,  in  the  presence  of  that  great 
Being  at  whose  bar  we  must  all  hereafter  appear,  that 
I  have  used  no  one  art  of  an  advocate,  but  have  acted 
the  plain  unaffected  part  of  a  Christian  man,  instruct-  25 
ing  the  consciences  of  his  fellow-citizens  to  do  justice. 

If  I  have  deceived  you  on  this  subject,  I  am  myself 
deceived  ;  and  if  I  am  misled  through  ignorance,  my 
ignorance  is  incurable,  for  I  have  spared  no  pains 
to  understand  it.  I  am  not  stiff  in  opinions;  but  30 
before  1  change  any  of  those  that  I  have  given  you 
to-day,  I  must  see  some  direct  monument  of  justice 


defense  '  OF  GORDON.  1 07 

that  contradicts  them.  For  the  law  of  England  pays 
no  respect  to  theories,  however  ingenious,  or  to  au¬ 
thors,  however  wise  ;  and  therefore,  unless  you  hear 
me  refuted  by  a  series  of  direct  precedents,  and  not 
5  by  vague  doctrine,  if  you  wish  to  sleep  in  peace  ^  follow 
7ne. 

II.  And  now  the  most  important  part  of  our  task  « 
begins,  namely,  the  application  of  the  evidence  to  the 
doctrines  I  have  laid  down.  For  trial  is  nothing  more 
10  than  the  reference  of  facts  to  a  certain  rule  of  action, 
and  a  long  recapitulation  of  them  only  serves  to  dis¬ 
tract  and  perplex  the  memory,  without  enlightening 
the  judgment,  unless  the  great  standard  principle  by 
which  they  are  to  be  measured  is  fixed  and  rooted  in 
15  the  mind.  When  that  is  done  (which  I  am  confident 
has  been  done  by  you),  everything  worthy  of  obser¬ 
vation  falls  naturally  into  its  place,  and  the  result  is 
safe  and  certain. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  already  in  proof  before  you  (indeed 
20  it  is  now  a  matter  of  history),  that  an  act  of  Parlia¬ 
ment  passed  in  the  session  of  1778,  for  the  repeal  of 
certain  restrictions,  which  the  policy  of  our  ancestors 
had  imposed  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  to 
prevent  its  extension,  and  to  render  its  limited  tolera- 
25  tion  harmless  ;  restrictions,  imposed  not  because  our 
ancestors  took  upon  them  to  pronounce  that  faith  to 
be  offensive  to  God,  but  because  it  was  incompatible 
with  good  faith  to  man — being  utterly  inconsistent 
with  allegiance  to  a  Protestant  government,  from 
30  their  oaths  and  obligations  to  which  it  gave  them  not 
only  a  release,  but  a  crown  of  glory,  as  the  reward  of 
treachery  and  treason. 


io8 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


It  was,  indeed,  with  astonishment  that  I  heard  the 
Attorney-General  stigmatize  those  wise  regulations  of 
our  patriot  ancestors  with  the' title  of  factious  and 
cruel  impositions  on  the  consciences  and  liberties  of 
their  fellow-citizens.  Gentlemen,  they  were,  at  the  5 
time^  wise  and  salutary  regulations  ;  regulations  to 
which  this  country  owes  its  freedom,  and  his  Majesty 
his  crown — a  crown  which  he  wears  under  the  strict 
entail  of  professing  and  protecting  that  religion  which 
they  were  made  to  repress  ;  and  which  I  know  my  10 
noble  friend  at  the  bar  joins  with  me,  and  with  all 
good  men,  in  wishing  that  he  and  his  posterity  may 
wear  forever.^® 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  recall  to  your  minds  the 
fatal  effects  which  bigotry  has,  in  former  days,  pro- 
duced  in  this  island.  I  will  not  follow  the  example 
the  Crown  has  set  me,  by  making  an  attack  upon  your 
passions,  on  subjects  foreign  to  the  object  before  you. 

I  will  not  call  your  attention  from  those  flames,  kindled 
by  a  villainous  banditti  (which  they  have  thought  fit,  20 
in  defiance  of  evidence,  to  introduce),  by  bringing 
before  your  eyes  the  more  cruel  flames,  in  which  the 
bodies  of  our  expiring,  meek,  patient,  Christian  fathers 
were,  little  more  than  a  century  ago,  consuming  in 

“  Erskine  here  gives  great  prominence  to  his  views  of  the  25 
original  necessity  of  the  law  of  1778,  confirming  them  by  pointed 
references  in  the  next  paragraph  to  the  persecuting  spirit  of  Pop¬ 
ery  in  order  to  enforce  his  next  leading  thought  ;  namely,  that  the 
Protestant  Association  originated  in  justifiable  feelings,  a  point 
which  was  important  to  the  defense  of  his  client.  This  mode  of  30 
shaping  one  part  of  his  speech  to  prepare  the  way  for  another  part, 
and  to  support  it,  is  one  of  the  most  admirable  qualities  of  Mr. 
Erskine.’" — Goodrich. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON,  109 

Smithfield.  I  will  not  call  up  from  the  graves  of 
martyrs  all  the  precious  holy  blood  that  has  been 
spilled  in  this  land,  to  save  its  established  government 
and  its  reformed  religion  from  the  secret  villainy  and 
5  the  open  force  of  Papists.  The  cause  does  not  stand 
in  need  even  of  such  honest  arts  ;  and  I  feel  my  heart 
too  big  voluntarily  to  recite  such  scenes,  when  I  reflect 
that^  some  of  my  own,  and  my  best  and  dearest  pro¬ 
genitors,  from  whom  I  glory  to  be  descended,  ended 
10  their  innocent  lives  in  prisons  and  in  exile,  only  because 
they  were  Protestants, 

Gentlemen,  whether  the  great  lights  of  science  and 
of  commerce,  which,  since  those  disgraceful  times, 
have  illuminated  Europe,  may,  by  dispelling  these 
15  shocking  prejudices,  have  rendered  the  Papists  of 
this  day  as  safe  and  trusty  subjects  as  those  who  con¬ 
form  to  the  national  religion  established  by  law,  I 
shall  not  take  upon  me  to  determine.  It  is  wholly 
unconnected  with  the  present  inquiry.  We  are  not 
20  trying  a  question  either  of  divinity  or  civil  policy; 
and  I  shall,  therefore,  not  enter  at  all  into  the  motives 
or  merits  of  the  act  that  produced  the  Protestant  peti¬ 
tion  to  Parliament.  It  was  certainly  introduced  by 
persons  who  cannot  be  named  by  any  good  citizen 
25  without  affection  and  respect.”  But  this  I  will  say, 
without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  it  was  sudden  and 
unexpected  ;  that  it  passed  with  uncommon  precipita- 

“  The  bill  was  brought  in  by  Sir  George  Saville,  and  sup¬ 
ported,  among  others,  by  Mr.  Dunning,  Mr.  Thurlow,  and  Lord 
30  Beauchamp,  and  passed  into  an  act  without  any  opposition  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  with  very  slight  opposition  in  the  Lords, 
and  the  King  was  known  to  have  been  favorable  to  it.” — Goodrich. 


I  lO 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


tion,  considering  the  magnitude  of  the  object  ;  that  it 
underwent  no  discussion  ;  and  that  the  heads  of  the 
Church,  the  constitutional  guardians  of  the  national 
religion,  were  never  consulted  upon  it.  Under  such 
circumstances,  it  is  no  wonder  that  many  sincere  5 
Protestants  were  alarmed  ;  and  they  had  a  right  to 
spread  their  apprehensions.  It  is  the  privilege  and 
the  duty  of  all  the  subjects  of  England  to  watch  over 
their  religious  and  civil  liberties,  and  to  approach 
either  their  representatives  or  the  Throne  with  their  10 
fears  and  their  complaints — a  privilege  which  has  been 
bought  with  the  dearest  blood  of  our  ancestors,  and 
which  is  confirmed  to  us  by  law,  as  our  ancient  birth¬ 
right  and  inheritance. 

Soon  after  the  repeal  of  the  act  the  Protestant  15 
Association  began,  and,  from  small  beginnings,  ex¬ 
tended  over  England  and  Scotland.  A  deed  of  associa¬ 
tion  was  signed,  by  all  legal  7neans  to  oppose  the  growth 
of  Popery  ;  and  which  of  the  advocates  for  the  Crown 
will  stand  up  and  say  that  such  an  union  was  illegal  ?2o 
Their  union  was  perfectly  constitutional  ;  there  was 
no  obligation  of  secrecy ;  their  transactions  were  all 
public  ;  a  committee  was  appointed  for  regularity  and 
correspondence  ;  and  circular  letters  were  sent  to  all 
the  dignitaries  of  the  Church,  inviting  them  to  join  25 
with  them  in  the  protection  of  the  national  religion. 

All  this  happened  before  Lord  George  Gordon  was 
a  member  of,  or  the  most  distantly  connected  with  it ; 
for  it  was  not  till  November,  1779,  that  the  London 
Association  made  him  an  offer  of  their  chair,  by  a  30 
unanimous  resolution,  communicated  to  him,  unsought 
and  unexpected,  in  a  public  letter,  signed  by  the 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


III 


secretary  in  the  name  of  the  whole  body  ;  and  from 
that  day,  to  the  day  he  was  committed  to  the  Tower,  I 
will  lead  him  by  the  hand  in  your  view,  that  you  may 
see  there  is  no  blame  in  him.  Though  all  his  behavior 
5  was  unreserved  and  public,  and  though  watched  by 
wicked  men  for  purposes  of  vengeance,  the  Crown  has 
totally  failed  in  giving  it  such  a  context  as  can  justify, 
in  the  mind  of  any  reasonable  man,  the  conclusion  it 
seeks  to  establish. 

lo  This  will  fully  appear  hereafter  ;  but  let  us  first 
attend  to  the  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  Crown. 

The  first  witness  to  support  this  prosecution  is 
William  Hay — a  bankrupt  in  fortune  he  acknowl¬ 
edges  himself  to  be,  and  I  am  afraid  he  is  a  bankrupt 
15  in  conscience.  Such  a  scene  of  impudent,  ridiculous 
inconsistency  would  have  utterly  destroyed  his  credi¬ 
bility  in  the  most  trifling  civil  suit  ;  and  I  am,  there¬ 
fore,  almost  ashamed  to  remind  you  of  his  evidence, 
when  I  reflect  that  you  will  never  suffer  it  to  glance 
20  across  your  minds  on  this  solemn  occasion. 

This  man,  whom  I  may  now,  without  offense  or 
slander,  point  out  to  you  as  a  dark  Popish  spy,  who 
attended  the  meetings  of  the  London  Association  to 
pervert  their  harmless  purposes,  conscious  that  the 
25  discovery  of  his  character  would  invalidate  all  his 
testimony,  endeavored  at  first  to  conceal  the  activity 
of  his  zeal,  by  denying  that  he  had  seen  any  of  the 
destructive  scenes  imputed  to  the  Protestants.  Yet, 

There  can  be  no  better  text  from  which  to  study  the  hand- 
30  ling  of  evidence  than  the  pages  of  this  speech  which  follow.  In 
them  a  student  will  find  nearly  all,  if  not  all,  of  the  general  rules 
for  sifting  and  valuing  evidence  brilliantly  illustrated. 


1 12  LORD  ERSKINE. 

almost  in  the  same  breath,  it  came  out,  by  his  own 
confession,  that  there  was  hardly  a  place,  public  or 
private,  where  Riot  had  erected  her  standard,  in  which 
he  had  not  been  ;  nor  a  house,  prison,  or  chapel  that 
was  destroyed,  to  the  demolition  of  which  he  had  not  5 
been  a  witness.  He  was  at  Newgate,  the  Fleet,  at 
Langdale’s,  and  at  Coleman  Street  ;  at  the  Sardinian 
Ambassador’s,  and  in  Great  Queen  Street,  Lincoln’s 
Inn  Fields.  What  took  him  to  Coachmakers’  Hall  ? 
He  went  there,  as  he  told  us,  to  watch  their  proceed-  to 
ings,  because  he  expected  no  good  from  them  ;  and 
to  justify  his  prophecy  of  evil,  he  said,  on  his  examina¬ 
tion  by  the  Crown,  that,  as  early  as  December,  he  had 
heard  some  alarming  republican  language.  What 
language  did  he  remember?  ‘MVhy,  that  the  Lord  15 
Advocate  of  Scotland  was  called  only  Harry  Dundas  !  ” 
Finding  this  too  ridiculous  for  so  grave  an  occasion, 
he  endeavored  to  put  some  words  about  the  breach  of 
the  King’s  coronation  oath  into  the  prisoner’s  mouth, 
as  proceeding  from  himself ;  which  it  is  notorious  he  20 
read  out  of  an  old  Scotch  book,  published  near  a 
century  ago,  on  the  abdication  of  King  James  the 
Second. 

Attend  to  his  cross-examination.  He  was  sure  he 
had  seen  Lord  George  Gordon  at  Greenwood’s  room  25 
in  January  ;  but  when  Mr.  Kenyon,  who  knew  Lord 
George  had  never  been  there,  advised  him  to  recol¬ 
lect  himself,  he  desired  to  consult  his  notes.  First, 
he  is  positively  sure,  from  his  memory,  that  he  had 
seen  him  there;  then  he  says,  he  cannot  trust  his  30 

“  Hay  swore  that  Lord  Gordon  had  declared  that  the  King 
had  broken  his  coronation  oath.*’ — Goodrich, 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDO  113 

memory  without  referring  to  his  papers.  On  looking 
at  them,  they  contradict  him  ;  and  he  then  confesses 
that  he  never  saw  Lord  George  Gordon  at  Green¬ 
wood’s  room  in  January,  when  his  note  was  taken, 
5  nor  at  any  other  time.  But  why  did  he  take  notes  ? 
He  said  it  was  because  he  foresaw  what  would  hap¬ 
pen.  How  fortunate  the  Crown  is,  gentlemen,  to 
have  such  friends  to  collect  evidence  by  anticipation  ! 
When  did  he  begin  to  take  notes?  He  said,  on  the 
io2ist  of  February,  which  was  the  first  time  he  had 
been  alarmed  at  what  he  had  seen  and  heard,  although, 
not  a  minute  before,  he  had  been  reading  a  note 
taken  at  Greenwood’s  room  in  January,  and  had 
sworn  that  he  had  attended  their  meetings,  from 
15  apprehensions  of  consequences,  as  early  as  December. 

Mr.  Kenyon,  who  now  saw  him  bewildered  in  a 
maze  of  falsehood,  and  suspecting  his  notes  to  have 
been  a  villainous  fabrication  to  give  the  show  of  cor¬ 
rectness  to  his  evidence,  attacked  him  with  a  shrewd- 
20  ness  for  which  he  was  wholly  unprepared.  You  re¬ 
member  the  witness  had  said  that  he  always  took 
notes  when  he  attended  any  meetings  where  he  ex¬ 
pected  their  deliberations  might  be  attended  with 
dangerous  consequences.  “Give .me  one  instance,” 
25  says  Mr.  Kenyon,  “  in  the  whole  course  of  your  life, 
where  you  ever  took  notes  before.”  Poor  Mr.  Hay 
was  thunder-struck  ;  the  sweat  ran  down  his  face, 
and  his  countenance  bespoke  despair — not  recollec¬ 
tion  :  “  Sir,  I  must  have  an  instance  ;  tell  me  when 
30  and  where  ?”  Gentlemen,  it  was  now  too  late  ;  some 
instance  he  was  obliged  to  give,  and,  as  it  was  evident 
to  everybody  that  he  had  one  still  to  choose,  I  think 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


I14 

he  might  have  chosen  a  better.  “  He  had  taken  notes 
at  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland^  six- 
and-twenty  years  before  ! What!  did  he  apprehend 
dangerous  consequences  from  the  deliberations  of 
the  grave  elders  of  the  Kirk  ?  Were  they  levying  5 
war  against  the  King  ?  iVt  last,  when  he  is  called 
upon  to  say  to  whom  he  communicated  the  intelli¬ 
gence  he  had  collected,  the  spy  stood  confessed  in- 
deed.  At  first  he  refused  to  tell,  saying  he  was  his 
friend,  and  that  he  was  not  obliged  to  give  him  up  ;  10 
and  when  forced  at  last  to  speak,  it  came  out  to  be 
Mr.  Butler,  a  gentleman  universally  known,  and  who, 
from  what  I  know  of  him,  I  may  be  sure  never  em¬ 
ployed  him,  or  any  other  spy,  because  he  is  a  man 
every  way  respectable,  but  who  certainly  is  not  only  15 
a  Papist,  but  the  person  who  was  employed  in  all 
their  proceedings,  to  obtain  the  late  indulgences  from 
Parliament. He  said  Mr.  Butler  was  his  particular 
friend,  yet  professed  himself  ignorant  of  his  religion. 

I  am  sure  he  could  not  be  desired  to  conceal  it.  Mr.  20 
Butler  makes  no  secret  of  his  religion.  It  is  no  re¬ 
proach  to  any  man  who  lives  the  life  he  does.  But 
Mr.  Hay  thought  it  of  moment  to  his  own  credit  in 
the  cause,  that  he  himself  might  be  thought  a  Prot¬ 
estant,  unconnected  with  Papists^  and  not  a  Popish  25 

spy. 

So  ambitious,  indeed,  was  the  miscreant  of  being 
useful  in  this  odious  character,  through  every  stage 
of  the  cause,  that,  after  staying  a  little  in  St.  George’s 
Fields,  he  ran  home  to  his  own  house  in  St.  Dunstan’s3o 

“  Mr.  Charles  Butler,  author  of  the  Reminiscences.” — Good¬ 
rich. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


115 

church-yard,  and  got  upon  the  leads,  where  he  swore 
he  saw  the  very  scwie  inari  carrying  the  very  same  flag 
he  had  seen  in  the  fields.  Gentlemen,  whether  the 
petitioners  employed  the  same  standard-man  through 
5  the  whole  course  of  their  peaceable  procession  is  cer¬ 
tainly  totally  immaterial  to  the  cause,  but  the  cir¬ 
cumstance  is  material  to  show  the  wickedness  of  the 
man.  How,”  says  jMr.  Kenyon,  do  you  know 
that  it  was  the  same  person  you  saw  in  the  fields  ? 
10  Were  you  acquainted  with  him?”  No.”  ‘‘How 
then  ?”  “Why,  he  looked  liked  a  brewer’s  servant.” 
Like  a  brewer  s  servant !  “  What,  were  they  not  all  in 

tiieir  Sunday’s  clothes?”  “Oh!  yes,  they  were  all 
in  their  Sunday’s  clothes.”  “Was  the  man  with  the 
15  flag  then  alone  in  the  dress  of  his  trade?”  “No.” 
“  'Fhen  how  do  you  know  he  was  a  brewer’s  servant  ?  ” 
Poor  Mr.  Hay  ! — nothing  but  sweat  and  confusion 
again  I  At  last,  after  a  hesitation,  which  everybody 
thought  would  have  ended  in  his  running  out  of  court, 
20  he  said,  “  he  knew  him  to  be  a  brewer’s  servant,  be¬ 
cause  there  was  something  particular  in  the  cut  of  his 
coat,  the  cut  of  his  breeches,  and  the  cut  of  his  stock- 
mgs  ! 

You  see,  gentlemen,  by  what  strange  means  villainy 
25  is  detected.  Perhaps  he  might  have  escaped  from  me, 
but  he  sunk  under  that  shrewdness  and  sagacity,  which 
ability,  without  long  habits,  does  not  provide.  Gentle¬ 
men,  you  will  not,  I  am  sure,  forget,  whenever  you  see 
a  man  about  whose  apparel  there  is  anything  particu* 
30  lar,  to  set  him  down  for  a  brewer  s  servant. 

Mr.  Hay  afterward  went  to  the  lobby  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  What  took  him  there  ?  He  thought 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


1 16 

himself  in  danger  ;  and  therefore,  says  Mr.  Kenyon, 
you  thrust  yourself  voluntarily  into  the  very  centre  of 
danger.  That  would  not  do.  Then  he  had  a  particu¬ 
lar  friend,  whom  he  knew  to  be  in  the  lobby,  and  whom 
he  apprehended  to  be  in  danger.  Sir,  who  was  that  5 
particular  friend  ?  Out  with  it.  Give  us  his  name 
instantly.”  All  in  confusion  again.  Not  a  word  to 
say  for  himself ;  and  the  name  of  this  person  who 
had  the  honor  of  Mr.  Hay’s  friendship  will  probably 
remain  a  secret  forever.  lo 

It  may  be  asked,  are  these  circumstances  material  ? 
and  the  answer  is  obvious  :  they  are  material  ;  because, 
when  you  see  a  witness  running  into  every  hole  and 
corner  of  falsehood,  and,  as  fast  as  he  is  made  to  bolt 
out  of  one,  taking  cover  in  another,  you  will  never  15 
give  credit  to  what  that  man  relates,  as  to  any  possible 
matter  which  is  to  affect  the  life  or  reputation  of  a 
fellow-citizen  accused  before  you.  God  forbid  that 
you  should.  I  might,  therefore,  get  rid  of  this  wretch 
altogether  without  making  a  single  remark  on  that  20 
part  of  his  testimony  which  bears  upon  the  issue  you 
are  trying  ;  but  the  Crown  shall  have  the  full  benefit 
of  it  all.  I  will  defraud  it  of  nothing  he  has  said. 
Notwithstanding  all  his  folly  and  wickedness,  let  us 
for  the  present  take  it  to  be  true,  and  see  what  it  25 
amounts  to.  AVhat  is  it  he  states  to  have  passed  at 
Coachmakers’  Hall  ?  That  Lord  George  Gordon 
desired  the  multitude  to  behave  with  unanimity  and 
firmness,  as  the  Scotch  had  done.  Gentlemen,  there 
IS  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  Scotch  behaved  with  30 
unanimity  and  firmness  in  resisting  the  relaxation  of 
the  penal  laws  against  Papists,  and  that  by  that 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


117 

unanimity  and  firmness  they  succeeded  ;  but  it  was 
by  the  constitutional  unanimity  and  firmness  of  the 
great  body  of  the  people  of  Scotland  whose  example 
Lord  George  Gordon  recommended,  and  not  by  the 
5  riots  and  burning  which  they  attempted  to  prove  had 
been  committed  in  Edinburgh  in  1778. 

I  will  tell  you  myself,  gentlemen,  as  one  of  the 
people  of  Scotland,  that  there  then  existed,  and  still 
exist,  eighty-five  societies  of  Protestants,  who  have 
10 been,  and  still  are,  uniformly  firm  in  opposing  every 
change  in  that  system  of  laws  established  to  secure 
the  Revolution  ;  and  Parliament  gave  way  in  Scotland 
to  their  united  voice,  and  not  to  the  fire-brands  of  the 
rabble.  It  is  the  duty  of  Parliament  to  listen  to  the 
15  voice  of  the  people,  for  they  are  the  servants  of  the 
people.  And  when  the  Constitution  of  church  or  state 
is  believed,  whether  truly  or  falsely,  to  be  in  danger, 
I  hope  there  never  will  be  wanting  men  (notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  proceedings  of  to-day)  to  desire  the  people  to 
20  persevere  and  be  firm.  Gentlemen,  has  the  Crown 
proved  that  the  Protestant  brethren  of  the  London 
Association  fired  the  mass-houses  in  Scotland  or  acted 
in  rebellious  opposition  to  law,  so  as  to  entitle  it  to 
wrest  the  prisoner’s  expressions  into  an  excitation  of 
25  rebellion  against  the  state,  or  of  violence  against  the 
properties  of  English  Papists,  by  setting  up  their 
firmness  as  an  example  ?  Certainly  not.  They  have 
not  even  proved  the  naked  fact  of  such  violences, 
though  such  proof  would  have  called  for  no  resist- 

“  The  violent  popular  opposition  manifested  toward  the  pro¬ 
posed  act  extending  the  Roman  Catholic  Relief  Bill  to  Scotland, 
caused  it  to  be  abandoned.” — Goodrich. 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


1 18 

ance  ;  since  to  make  it  bear  as  rebellious  advice  to 
the  Protestant  Association  of  London,  it  must  have 
been  first  shown  that  such  acts  had  been  perpetrated 
or  encouraged  by  the  Protestant  societies  in  the 
North.  5 

Who  has  dared  to  say  this  ?  No  man.  The  rabble 
in  Scotland  certainlv  did  that  which  has  since  been 
done  by  the  rabble  in  England,  to  the  disgrace  and 
reproach  of  both  countries.  But  in  neither  country 
was  there  found  one  man  of  character  or  condition,  of  lo 
any  description,  who  abetted  such  enormities,  nor  any 
man,  high  or  low,  of  any  of  the  Associated  Protestants, 
here  or  there,  who  were  either  convicted,  tried,  or 
taken  on  suspicion. 

As  to  what  this  man  heard  on  the  29th  of  May,  it  15 
was  nothing  more  than  the  proposition  of  going  up  in 
a  body  to  St.  George's  Fields  to  consider  how  the  peti¬ 
tion  should  be  presented,  with  the  same  exhortations 
to  firmness  as  before.  The  resolution  made  on  the 
motion  has  been  read,  and  when  I  come  to  state  the  20 
evidence  on  the  part  of  my  noble  friend,  I  will  show 
you  the  impossibility  of  supporting  any  criminal  infer¬ 
ence  from  what  Mr.  Hay  afterward  puts  in  his  mouth 
in  the  lobby,  even  taking  it  to  be  true.  I  wish  here  to 
be  accurate  [looking  on  a  card  on  which  he  had  taken  25 
down  his  words].  He  says  :  “  Lord  George  desired 
them  to  continue  steadfastly  to  adhere  to  so  good  a 
cause  as  theirs  was  ;  promised  to  persevere  in  it  him¬ 
self,  and  hoped,  though  there  was  little  expectation  at 
present  from  the  House  of  Commons,  that  they  would  30 
meet  with  redress  from  their  mild  and  gracious 
Sovereign^  who,  no  doubt,  would  recommend  it  to  his 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


119 

ministers  to  repeal  it.’'  This  was  all  he  heard,  and  I 
will  show  you  how  this  wicked  man  himself  (if  any 
belief  is  to  be  given  to  him)  entirely  overturns  and 
brings  to  the  ground  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Bowen, on 
5  which  the  Crown  rests  singly  for  the  proof  of  words 
which  are  more  difficult  to  explain.  Gentlemen,  was 
this  the  language  of  rebellion  ?  If  a  multitude  were 
at  the  gates  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  command 
and  insist  on  a  repeal  of  this  law,  why  encourage  their 
10  hopes  by  reminding  them  that  they  had  a  mild  and 
gracious  Sovereign  ?  If  war  was  levying  against  him, 
there  was  no  occasion  for  his  mildness  and  gracious¬ 
ness.  If  he  had  said,  Be  firm  and  persevere,  we 
shall  meet  with  redress  from  the  prudence  of  the  Sov- 
15  ereign,”  it  might  have  borne  a  different  construction  ; 
because,  whether  he  was  gracious  or  severe,  his  pru¬ 
dence  might  lead  him  to  submit  to  the  necessity  of 
the  times.  The  words  sworn  to  were,  therefore,  per¬ 
fectly  clear  and  unambiguous — ‘‘  Persevere  in  your  zeal 
20  and  supplications,  and  you  will  meet  with  redress  from 
a  mild  and  gracious  King,  who  will  recommend  it  to 
his  ministers  to  repeal  it.”  Good  God  !  if  they  were 
to  wait  till  the  King,  whether  from  benevolence  or  fear, 
should  direct  his  minister  to  influence  the  proceed- 
25  ings  of  Parliament,  how  does  it  square  with  the  charge 
of  instant  coercion  or  intimidation  of  the  House  of 
Commons  ?  If  the  multitude  were  assembled  with  the 
premeditated  design  of  producing  immediate  repeal  by 
terror  or  arms,  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  their 
30  leader  would  desire  them  to  be  quiet,  and  refer  them 
to  those  qualities  of  the  Prince,  which,  however  emi- 

**  The  Chaplain  of  the  House  of  Commons.” — Goodrich. 


I  20 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


nently  they  might  belong  to  him,  never  could  be 
exerted  on  subjects  in  rebellion  to  his  authority  ?  In 
what  a  labyrinth  of  nonsense  and  contradiction  do 
men  involve  themselves,  when,  forsaking  the  rules  of 
evidence,  they  would  draw  conclusions  from  words  in  5 
contradiction  to  language  and  in  defiance  of  common 
sense ! 

The  next  witness  that  is  called  to  you  by  the 
Crown  is  Mr.  Metcalf.  He  was  not  in  the  lobby, 
but  speaks  only  to  the  meeting  in  Coachmakers’  Hall,  10 
on  the  29th  of  May,  and  in  St.  George’s  Fields.  He 
says  that  at  the  former.  Lord  George  reminded  them 
that  the  Scotch  had  succeeded  by  their  unanimity — 
and  hoped  that  no  one  who  had  signed  the  petition 
would  be  ashamed  or  afraid  to  show  himself  in  the  15 
cause  ;  that  he  was  ready  to  go  to  the  gallows  for  it  ; 
that  he  would  not  present  the  petition  of  a  lukewarm 
people  ;  that  he  desired  them  to  come  to  St.  George’s 
Fields,  distinguished  with  blue  cockades,  and  that 
they  should  be  marshaled  in  four  divisions.  Then  he  20 
speaks  to  having  seen  them  in  the  fields  in  the  order 
which  has  been  described  ;  and  Lord  George  Gordon 
in  a  coach  surrounded  by  a  vast  concourse  of  people, 
with  blue  ribbons,  forming  like  soldiers,  but  was  not 
near  enough  to  hear  whether  the  prisoner  spoke  to  25 
them  or  not.  Such  is  Mr.  Metcalf’s  evidence  ;  and 
after  the  attention  you  have  honored  me  with,  and 
which  I  shall  have  occasion  so  often  to  ask  again  on 
the  same  subject,  I  shall  trouble  you  with  but  one 
observation,  namely,  that  it  cannot,  without  absurdity,  30 
be  supposed  that  if  the  assembly  at  Coachmakers’  Hall 
had  been  such  conspirators  as  they  are  represented, 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


I2I 


their  doors  would  have  been  open  to  strangers,  like 
this  witness,  to  come  in  to  report  their  proceedings. 

The  next  witness  is  Mr.  Anstruther,^’  who  speaks 
to  the  language  and  deportment  of  the  noble  prisoner, 
5  both  at  Coachmakers’  Hall,  on  the  29th  of  May,  and 
afterward  on  the  2d  of  June,  in  the  lobby  of  the 
House  of  Commons.  It  will  be  granted  to  me,  I  am 
sure,  even  by  the  advocates  of  the  Crown,  that  this 
gentleman,  not  only  from  the  clearness  and  consist- 
10  ency  of  his  testimony,  but  from  his  rank  and  character 
in  the  world,  is  infinitely  more  worthy  of  credit  than 
Mr.  Hay,  who  went  before  him.  And  from  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  irritation  and  confusion  under  which 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Bowen  confessed  himself  to  have  heard 
15  and  seen,  what  he  told  you  he  heard  and  saw,  I  may 
likewise  assert,  without  any  offense  to  the  reverend 
gentleman,  and  without  drawing  any  parallel  between 
their  credits,  that  where  their  accounts  of  this  trans¬ 
action  differ,  the  preference  is  due  to  the  former. 
20  Mr.  Anstruther  very  properly  prefaced  his  evidence 
with  this  declaration  :  do  not  mean  to  speak 

accurately  to  words  ;  it  is  impossible  to  recollect  them 
at  this  distance  of  time.”  I  believe  I  have  used  his 
very  expression,  and  such  expression  it  well  became 
25  him  to  use  in  a  case  of  blood.  But  words,  even  if  they 
could  be  accurately  remembered,  are  to  be  admitted 
with  great  reserve  and  caution,  when  the  purpose  of 
the  speaker  is  to  be  measured  by  them.  They  are 
transient  and  fleeting  ;  frequently  the  effect  of  a  sud- 
30  den  transport,  easily  misunderstood,  and  often  uncon¬ 
sciously  misrepresented.  It  may  be  the  fate  of  the 

IT  “  This  gentleman  was  a  member  of  Parliament.’' — Goodrich. 


12  2 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


most  innocent  language  to  appear  ambiguous,  or  even 
malignant,  when  related  in  mutilated,  detached  pas¬ 
sages,  by  people  to  whom  it  is  not  addressed,  and  who 
know  nothing  of  the  previous  design  either  of  the 
speaker  or  of  those  to  whom  he  spoke.  Mr.  5 
Anstruther  says  that  he  heard  Lord  George  Gordon 
desire  the  petitioners  to  meet  him  on  the  Friday  fol¬ 
lowing,  in  St.  George’s  Fields,  and  that  if  there  were 
fewer  than  twenty  thousand  people,  he  would  not 
present  the  petition,  as  it  would  not  be  of  consequence  lo 
enough  ;  and  that  he  recommended  to  them  the  ex¬ 
ample  of  the  Scotch,  who,  by  their  firmness,  had  car¬ 
ried  their  point. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  already  admitted  that  they  did 
by  firmness  carry  it.  But  has  Mr.  Anstruther  at- 15 
tempted  to  state  any  one  expression  that  fell  from  the 
prisoner  to  justify  the  positive,  unerring  conclusion, 
or  even  the  presumption,  that  the  firmness  of  the 
Scotch  Protestants,  by  which  the  point  was  carried  in 
Scotland,  was  the  resistance  and  riots  of  the  rabble  ?  20 
No,  gentlemen  ;  he  simply  states  the  words,  as  he 
heard  them  in  the  hall  on  the  29th,  and  all  that  he 
afterward  speaks  to  in  the  lobby,  repels  so  harsh  and 
danoferous  a  construction.  The  words  sworn  to  at 
Coachmakers’  Hall  are,  ‘‘that  he  recommended  tern- 25 
perance  and  firmness.”  Gentlemen,  if  his  motives 
are  to  be  judged  by  words,  for  Heaven’s  sake  let  these 
words  carry  their  popular  meaning  in  language.  Is 
it  to  be  presumed,  without  proof,  that  a  man  means 
o?ie  thing  because  he  says  another  ?  Does  the  exhor-  30 
tation  to  temperance  and  firmness  apply  most  natu¬ 
rally  to  the  constitutional  resistance  of  the  Protestants 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


123 


of  Scotland,  or  to  the  outrages  of  ruffians  who  pulled 
down  the  houses  of  their  neighbors  ?  Is  it  possible, 
with  decency,  to  say,  in  a  court  of  justice,  that  the 
recommendation  of  temperance  is  the  excitation  to 
5  villainy  and  frenzy?  But  the  words,  it  seems,  are  to 
be  construed,  not  from  their  own  signification,  but 
from  that  which  follows  them,  viz.,  by  that  the 
Scotch  carried  their  point.”  Gentlemen,  is  it  in  evi¬ 
dence  before  you  that  by  rebellion  the  Scotch  carried 
10 their  point?  or  that  the  indulgences  to  Papists  were 
not  extended  to  Scotland  because  the  rabble  had 
opposed  their  extension  ?  Has  the  Crown  authorized 
either  the  court  or  its  law  servants  to  tell  you  so  ?  Or 
can  it  be  decently  maintained  that  Parliament  was  so 
15  weak  or  infamous  as  to  yield  to  a  wretched  mob  of 
vagabonds  at  Edinburgh  what  it  has  since  refused  to 
the  earnest  prayers  of  a  hundred  thousand  Protestants 
of  London?  No,  gentlemen  of  the  jury.  Parliament 
was  not,  I  hope,  so  abandoned.  But  the  ministers 
20  knew  that  the  Protestants  of  Scotland  were  to  a  man 
abhorrent  of  that  law.  And  though  they  never  held 
out  resistance,  if  government  should  be  disposed  to 
cram  it  down  their  throats  by  force,  yet  such  violence 
to  the  united  sentiments  of  a  whole  people  appeared 
25  to  be  a  measure  so  obnoxious,  so  dangerous,  and 
withal  so  unreasonable,  that  it  was  wisely  and  judi¬ 
ciously  dropped,  to  satisfy  the  general  wishes  of  the 
nation,  and  not  to  avert  the  vengeance  of  those  low  in¬ 
cendiaries  whose  misdeeds  have  rather  been  talked  of 
30  than  proved. 

Thus,  gentlemen,  the  exculpation  of  Lord  George’s 
conduct  on  the  29th  of  May  is  sufficiently  established 


124' 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


by  the  very  evidence  on  which  the  Crown  asks  you  to 
convict  him.  For,  in  recommending  temperance  and 
firmness  after  the  example  of  Scotland^  you  cannot  be 
justified  in  pronouncing  that  he  meant  more  than  the 
firmness  of  the  grave  and  respectable  people  in  that  5 
country,  to  whose  constitutional  firmness  the  Legisla¬ 
ture  had  before  acceded,  instead  of  branding  it  with 
the  title  of  rebellion  ;  and  who,  in  my  mind,  deserve 
thanks  from  the  King  for  temperately  and  firmly  re¬ 
sisting  every  innovation  which  they  conceived  to  be  10 
dangerous  to  the  national  religion,  independently  of 
which  his  Majesty  (without  a  new  limitation  by  Parlia¬ 
ment)  has  no  more  title  to  the  crown  than  I  have. 

Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  whole  amount  of  all  my 
noble  friend’s  previous  communication  with  the  peti- 15 
tioners,  whom  he  afterward  assembled  to  consider 
how  their  petition  should  be  presented.  This  is  all, 
not  only  that  men  of  credit  can  tell  you  on  the  part  of 
the  prosecution,  but  all  that  even  the  worst  vagabond 
who  ever  appeared  in  a  court — the  very  scum  of  the  20 
earth — thought  himself  safe  in  saying,  upon  oath,  on 
the  present  occasion.  Indeed,  gentlemen,  when  I 
consider  my  noble  friend’s  situation,  his  open,  unre¬ 
served  temper,  and  his  warm  and  animated  zeal  for  a 
cause  which  rendered  him  obnoxious  to  so  many  25 
wicked  men — speaking  daily  and  publicly  to  mixed 
multitudes  of  friends  and  foes,  on  a  subject  which 
affected  his  passions — I  confess  I  am  astonished  that 
no  other  expressions  than  those  in  evidence  before 
you  have  found  their  way  into  this  court.  That  they  30 
have  not  found  their  way  is  surely  a  most  satisfactory 
proof  that  there  was  nothing  in  his  heart  which  even 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


125 

youthful  zeal  could  magnify  into  guilt,  or  that  want 
of  caution  could  betray. 

Gentlemen,  Mr.  Anstruther’s  evidence,  when  he 
speaks  of  the  lobby  of  the  House  of  Commons,  is 
5  very  much  to  be  attended  to.  He  says,  I  saw  Lord 
George  leaning  over  the  gallery,”  which  position, 
joined  with  what  he  mentioned  of  his  talking  with  the 
chaplain,  marks  the  time  and  casts  a  strong  doubt  on 
Bowen'^i  testimony,  which  you  will  find  stands,  in  this 
10  only  material  part  of  it,  single  and  unsupported.  I 
then  heard  him,”  continues  Mr.  Anstruther,  “  tell 
them  they  had  been  called  a  mob  in  the  House,  and 
that  peace-officers  had  been  sent  to  disperse  them 
(peaceable]  petitioners)  ;  but  that  by  steadiness  and 
15  firmness  they  might  carry  their  point  ;  as  he  had  no 
doubt  his  Majesty,  who  was  a  gracious  prince,  would 
send  to  his  ministers  to  repeal  the  act,  when  he  heard 
his  subjects  were  coming  up  for  miles  round,  and 
wishing  its  repeal.”  How  coming  up?  In  rebellion 
20 and  arms  to  compel  it?  No  !  all  is  still  put  on  the 
graciousness  of  the  Sovereign,  in  listening  to  the  unan¬ 
imous  wishes  of  his  people.  If  the  multitude  then 
assembled  had  been  brought  together  to  intimidate 
the  House  by  their  firmness,  or  to  coerce  it  by  their 
25  numbers,  it  was  ridiculous  to  look  forward  to  the 
King's  influence  over  it,  when  the  collection  of  future 
multitudes  should  induce  him  to  employ  it.  The  ex¬ 
pressions  were  therefore  quite  unambiguous  ;  nor 
could  malice  itself  have  suggested  another  construc- 
3otion  of  them,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  House 
was  at  that  time  surrounded,  not  by  the  petitioners 
whom  the  noble  prisoner  had  assembled,  but  by  a 


126 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


mob  who  had  mixed  with  them,  and  who,  therefore, 

when  addressed  by  him,  were  instantly  set  down  as 

his  followers.  He  thought  he  was  addressing  the 

sober  members  of  the  association,  who  by  steadiness 

and  perseverance  could  understand  nothing  more  5 

than  perseverance  in  that  conduct  he  had  antecedently 

prescribed,  as  steadiness  signifies  a  uniformity,  not  a 

change  of  conduct  ;  and  I  defy  the  Crown  to  find  out 

a  single  expression,  from  the  day  he  took  the  chair  at 

the  association  to  the  day  I  am  speaking  of,  that  jus- 10 

tifies  anv  other  construction  of  steadiness  and  firm- 
¥ 

ness  than  that  which  I  put  upon  it  before. 

What  would  be  the  feelings  of  our  venerable  ances¬ 
tors,  who  framed  the  statue  of  treasons  to  prevent  their 
children  being  drawn  into  the  snares  of  death,  unless  15 
provahly  convicted  by  overt  acts,  if  they  could  hear  us 
disputing  whether  it  was  treason  to  desire  harmless, 
unarmed  men  to  be  firm  and  of  good  heart,  and  to 
trust  to  the  graciousness  of  their  King  ? 

Here  Mr.  Anstruther  closes  his  evidence,  which  20 
leads  me  to  iSIr.  Bowen,  who  is  the  only  man — I  be¬ 
seech  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  to  attend  to  this 
circumstance — Mr.  Bowen  is  the  only  man  who  has 
attempted,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  say  that  Lord 
George  Gordon  uttered  a  syllable  to  the  multitude  in  2 
the  lobby  concerning  the  destruction  of  the  mass- 
houses  in  Scotland.  Not  one  of  the  Crown’s  wit¬ 
nesses  ;  not  even  the  wretched,  abandoned  Hay,  who 
was  kept,  as  he  said,  in  the  lobby  the  whole  afternoon, 
from  anxiety  for  his  pretended  friend,  has  ever  30 
glanced  at  any  expression  resembling  it.  They  all 
finish  with  the  expectation  which  he  held  out,  from  a 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


127 


mild  and  gracious  Sovereign.  Mr.  Bowen  alone  goes 
on  further,  and  speaks  of  the  successful  riots  of  the 
Scotch.  But  he  speaks  of  them  in  such  a  manner, 
as,  so  far  from  conveying  the  hostile  idea,  which  he 
5  seemed  sufficiently  desirous  to  convey,  tends  directly 
to  wipe  off  the  dark  hints  and  insinuations  which  have 
been  made  to  supply  the  place  of  proof  upon  that 
subject — a  subject  which  should  not  have  been  touched 
on  without  the  fullest  support  of  evidence,  and  where 
10  nothing  but  the  most  unequivocal  evidence  ought  to 
have  been  received.  He  says,  “  his  Lordship  began 
by  bidding  them  be  quiet,  peaceable,  and  steady'* — 
not  ‘‘  steady  ”  alone  ;  though,  if  that  had  been  the  ex¬ 
pression,  singly  by  itself,  I  should  not  be  afraid  to 
15  meet  it;  but,  '‘'‘Be  quiet,  peaceable,  and  steady!' 
Gentlemen,  I  am  indifferent  what  other  expressions  of 
dubious  interpretation  are  mixed  with  these.  For 
you  are  trying  whether  my  noble  friend  came  to  the 
Ho  Lise  of  Commons  with  a  decidedly  hostile  mind  ; 
20  and  as  I  shall,  on  the  recapitulation  of  our  own  evi¬ 
dence,  trace  him  in  your  view,  without  spot  or  stain, 
down  to  the  very  moment  when  the  imputed  words 
were  spoken,  you  will  hardly  forsake  the  whole  inno¬ 
cent  context  of  his  behavior,  and  torture  your  inven- 
25  tions  to  collect  the  blackest  system  of  guilt,  starting 
up  in  a  moment,  without  being  previously  concerted, 
or  afterward  carried  into  execution. 

First,  what  are  the  words  by  which  you  are  to  be 
convinced  that  the  Legislature  was  to  be  frightened 
30  into  compliance,  and  to  be  coerced  if  terror  should 
fail?  “Be  quiet,  peaceable,  and  steady;  you  are  a 
good  people  ;  yours  is  a  good  cause  :  his  Majesty  is  a 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


I  28 

gracious  monarch,  and  when  he  hears  that  all  his 
people,  ten  miles  round,  are  collecting,  he  will  send  to 
his  ministers  to  repeal  the  act.”  By  what  rules  of 
construction  can  such  an  address  to  unarmed,  defense¬ 
less  men  be  tortured  into  treasonable  guilt?  It  is  5 
impossible  to  do  it  without  pronouncing  even  in  the 
total  absence  of  all  proof  of  fraud  or  deceit  in  the 
speaker,  that  quiet  signifies  tumult  aiul  uproar^  and 
that  peace  signifies  ivar  and  rebellioyi. 

I  have  before  observed  that  it  was  most  important  to 
for  you  to  remember  that,  with  this  exhortation  to 
quiet  and  confidence  in  the  King,  the  evidence  of  all 
the  other  witnesses  closed.  Even  Mr.  Anstruther, 
who  was  a  long  time  afterward  in  the  lobbv,  heard 
nothing  further  ;  so  that  if  Mr.  Bowen  had  been  out  15 
of  the  case  altogether,  what  would  the  amount  have 
been?  Why,  simply,  that  Lord  George  Gordon,  hav¬ 
ing  assembled  an  unarmed,  inoffensive  multitude  in 
St.  George’s  Fields,  to  present  a  petition  to  Parlia¬ 
ment,  and  finding  them  becoming  tumultuous,  to  the  20 
discontent  of  Parliament  and  the  discredit  of  the 
cause,  desired  them  not  to  give  it  up,  but  to  continue 
to  show  their  zeal  for  the  legal  object  in  which  they 
were  engaged  ;  to  manifest  that  zeal  quietly  and  peace¬ 
ably,  and  not  to  despair  of  success  ;  since,  though  the  25 
House  was  not  disposed  to  listen  to  it,  they  had  a 
gracious  Sovereign,  who  would  second  the  wishes  of 
his  people.  This  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the 
whole.  They  were  not,  even  by  any  one  ambiguous 
expression,  encouraged  to  trust  to  their  numbers,  as  30 
sufficient  to  overawe  the  House,  or  to  their  strength 
to  compel  it,  or  to  the  prudence  of  the  state  in  yield- 


DEFE.VSE  OF  GORDON. 


129 


ing  to  necessity,  but  to  the  indulgence  of  the  King,  in 
compliance  with  the  wishes  of  his  people.  Mr.  Bowen, 
however,  thinks  proper  to  proceed  ;  and  I  beg  that 
you  will  attend  to  the  sequel  of  his  evidence.  He 
5  stands  single  in  all  the  rest  that  he  says,  which  might 
entitle  me  to  ask;  you  absolutely  to  reject  it.  But  I 
have  no  objection  to  your  believing  every  word  of  it, 
if  you  can :  because,  if  inconsistencies  prove  any¬ 
thing,  they  prove  that  there  was  nothing  of  that  de- 
10  liberation  in  the  prisoner’s  expressions  which  can 
justify  the  inference  of  guilt.  I  mean  to  be  correct 
as  to  his  words  [looking  at  his  words  which  he  had 
noted  down].  He  says  “that  Lord  George  told  the 
people  that  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  introduce 
15  the  bill  into  Scotland,  and  that  they  had  no  redress 
till  the  mass-houses  were  pulled  down.  That  Lord 
Weymouth  then  sent  official  assurances  that  it 
should  not  be  extended  to  them.”  Gentlemen,  why 
is  Mr.  Bowen  called  by  the  Crown  to  tell  you  this? 
20 The  reason  is  plain:  because  the  Crown,  conscious 
that  it  could  make  no  case  of  treason  from  the  rest  of 
the  evidence,  in  sober  judgment  of  law  ;  aware  that  it 
had  proved  no  purpose  or  act  of  force  against  the 
House  of  Commons,  to  give  countenance  to  the  accu- 
25  sation,  much  less  to  warrant  a  conviction,  found  it 
necessary  to  hold  up  the  noble  prisoner  as  the  wicked 
and  cruel  author  of  all  those  calamities  in  which  every 
man’s  passions  might  be  supposed  to  come  in  to  assist 
his  judgment  to  decide.  They  therefore  made  him 
30  speak  in  enigmas  to  the  multitude  :  not  telling  them 
to  do  mischief  in  order  to  succeed,  but  that  by  mis¬ 
chief  in  Scotland  success  had  been  obtained. 

‘®“Then  Secretary  for  the  Southern  Department." — Goodrich. 


130 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


But  were  the  mischiefs  themselves  that  did  happen 
here  of  a  sort  to  support  such  a  conclusion?  Can 
any  man  living,  for  instance,  believe  that  Lord  George 
Gordon  could  possibly  have  excited  the  mob  to 
destroy  the  house  of  that  great  and  venerable  magis-  5 
trate,  who  has  presided  so  long  in  this  high  tribunal 
that  the  oldest  of  us  do  not  remember  him  with  any 
other  impression  than  the  awful  form  and  figure  of 
justice  :  a  magistrate  who  had  always  been  the  friend 
of  the  Protestant  Dissenters  against  the  ill-timed  10 
jealousies  of  the  Establishment — his  countryman,  too, 

— and,  without  adverting  to  the  partiality  not  unjustly 
imputed  to  men  of  that  country,  a  man  of  whom  any 
country  might  be  proud  ?  No,  gentlemen,  it  is  not 
credible  that  a  man  of  noble  birth  and  liberal  educa- 15 
tion  (unless  Agitated  by  the  most  implacable  personal 
resentment,  which  is  not  imputed  to  the  prisoner) 
could  possibly  consent  to  the  burning  of  the  house  of 
Lord  Mansfield.^® 

If  Mr.  Bowen,  therefore,  had  ended  here,  I  can  20 
hardly  conceive  such  a  construction  could  be  decently 
hazarded  consistent  with  the  testimony  of  the  wit- 
nesses  we  have  called.  How  much  less,  when,  after 
the  dark  insinuations  which  such  expressions  might 
otherwise  have  been  argued  to  convey,  the  very  same  25 
person,  on  whose  veracity  or  memory  they  are  only  to 

This  reference  to  Lord  Mansfield,  then  seated  on  the  bench 
as  presiding  judge  at  the  age  of  seventy-six,  is  not  only  appropriate 
and  beautiful  in  itself,  but,  as  managed  by  Mr.  Erskine,  forms  a 
most  convincing  proof  in  favor  of  Lord  George  Gordon.  This  30 
was  one  of  Mr.  Erskine’s  excellences  that  he  never  went  out  of 
his  case  for  an  illustration  or  a  picture  which  refreshed  the  mind, 
but  he  brought  back  with  him  an  argiivientR — GooLrich. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


131 

be  believed,  and  who  must  be  credited  or  discredited  in 
toto,,  takes  out  the  sting  himself  by  giving  them  such  an 
immediate  context  and  conclusion  as  renders  the  pro¬ 
position  ridiculous,  which  his  evidence  is  brought  for- 
5  ward  to  establish  ;  for  he  says  that  Lord  George 
Gordon  instantly  afterward  addressed  himself  thus  : 
“  Beware  of  evil-minded  persons  who  may  mix  among 
you  and  do  mischief,  the  blame  of  which  will  be  im¬ 
puted  to  you.’' 

10  Gentlemen,  if  you  reflect  on  the  slander  which  I 
told  you  fell  upon  the  Protestants  in  Scotland  by  the 
acts  of  the  rabble  there,  I  am  sure  you  will  see  the 
words  are  capable  of  an  easy  explanation.  But  as 
Mr.  Bowen  concluded  with  telling  you  that  he  heard 
15  them  in  the  midst  of  noise  and  confusion,  and  as  I  can 
only  take  them  from  him^  I  shall  not  make  an  attempt 
to  collect  them  into  one  consistent  discourse,  so  as  to 
give  them  a  decided  meaning  in  favor  of  my  client, 
because  I  have  repeatedly  told  you  that  words  imper- 
2ofectly  heard  and  partially  related  cannot  be  so  recon¬ 
ciled.  But  this  I  will  say — that  he  must  be  a  ruffian, 
and  not  a  lawyer,  who  would  dare  to  tell  an  English 
jury  that  such  ambiguous  words,  hemmed  closely  in 
between  others  not  only  innocent  but  meritorious,  are 
25  to  be  adopted  to  constitute  guilt,  by  rejecting  both 
introduction  and  sequel,  with  which  they  are  absolutely 
irreconcilable  and  inconsistent  :  for  if  ambiguous 
words,  when  coupled  with  actions,  decipher  the  mind 
of  the  actor,  so  as  to  establish  the  presumption  of 
30  guilt,  will  not  such  as  are  plainly  innocent  and  unam¬ 
biguous  go  as  far  to  repel  such  presumption  ?  Is 
innocence  more  difficult  of  proof  than  the  most  malig- 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


132 

nant  wickedness?  Gentlemen,  I  see  your  minds 
revolt  at  such  shocking  propositions.  I  beseech  you 
to  forgive  me.  I  am  afraid  that  my  zeal  has  led  me 
to  offer  observations  which  I  ought  in  justice  to  have 
believed  every  honest  mind  would  suggest  to  itself  5 
with  pain  and  abhorrence  without  being  illustrated 
and  enforced. 

I  now  come  more  minutely  to  the  evidence  on  the 
part  of  the  prisoner. 

I  before  told  you  that  it  was  not  till  November,  10 
1779,  when  the  Protestant  Association  was  already 
fully  established,  that  Lord  George  Gordon  was  elected 
President  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  whole  body, 
unlooked  for  and  unsolicited.  It  is  surely  not  an  im- 
material  circumstance  that  at  the  very  first  meeting  15 
where  his  Lordship  presided,  a  dutiful  and  respectful 
petition,  the  same  which  was  afterward  presented  to 
Parliament,  was  read  and  approved  of ;  a  petition 
which,  so  far  from  containing  anything  threatening  or 
offensive,  conveyed  not  a  very  oblique  reflection  upon  20 
the  behavior  of  the  people  in  Scotland.  It  states,  that 
as  England  and  that  country  were  now  one,  and  as 
official  assurances  had  been  given  that  the  law  should 
not  pass  there,  they  hoped  the  peaceable  and  constitu¬ 
tional  deportment  of  the  English  Protestants  would  25 
entitle  them  to  the  approbation  of  Parliament. 

It  appears  by  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Erasmus  Mid¬ 
dleton,^®  a  very  respectable  clergyman,  and  one  of  the 
committee  of  the  Association,  that  a  meeting  had  been 
held  on  the  4th  of  May,  at  which  Lord  George  was  30 
not  present ;  that  at  that  meeting  a  motion  had 
“  The  first  witness  called  for  the  prisoner.” — Goodrich,  • 


DEFENSE  OE  GORDON. 


133 


been  made  for  going  up  with  the  petition  in  a  body, 
but  which,  not  being  regularly  put  from  the  chair,  no 
resolution  was  come  to  upon  it  ;  and  that  it  was  like¬ 
wise  agreed  on,  but  in  the  same  irregular  manner,  that 
5  there  should  be  no  other  public  meeting  previous  to 
the  presenting  the  petition.  That  this  last  resolution 
occasioned  great  discontent,  and  that  Lord  George 
was  applied  to  by  a  large  and  respectable  number  of 
the  Association  to  call  another  meeting  to  consider  of 
10  the  most  prudent  and  respectful  method  of  presenting 
their  petition  :  but  it  appears  that,  before  he  complied 
with  their  request,  he  consulted  with  the  committee  on 
the  propriety  of  compliance,  who  all  agreeing  to  it 
except  the  Secretary,  his  Lordship  advertised  the 
15  meeting  which  was  afterward  held  on  the  29th  of  May. 
The  meeting  was,  therefore,  the  act  of  whole  Asso¬ 
ciation.  As  to  the  original  difference  between  my 
noble  friend  and  the  committee  on  the  expediency  of 
the  measure,  it  is  totally  immaterial  ;  since  Mr.  Mid- 
2odleton,  who  was  one  of  the  number  who  differed  from 
him  on  that  subject  (and  whose  evidence  is,  therefore, 
infinitely  more  to  be  relied  on),  told  you  that  his  whole 
deportment  was  so  clear  and  unequivocal,  as  to  entitle 
him  to  assure  you  on  his  most  solemn  oath,  that  he  in 
25  his  conscience  believed  his  views  were  perfectly  con¬ 
stitutional  and  pure.  This  most  respectable  clergyman 
further  swears  that  he  attended  all  the  previous  meet¬ 
ings  of  the  society,  from  the  day  the  prisoner  became 
President  to  the  day  in  question  ;  and  that,  knowing 
30  they  were  objects  of  much  jealousy  and  malice,  he 
watched  his  behavior  with  anxiety,  lest  his  zeal  should 
furnish  matter  for  misrepresentation  ;  but  that  he 


134 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


never  heard  an  expression  escape  him  which  marked 
a  disposition  to  violate  the  duty  and  subordination  of 
a  subject,  or  which  could  lead  any  man  to  believe  that 
his  objects  were  different  from  the  avowed  and  legal 
objects  of  the  Association.  We  could  have  examined  5 
thousands  to  the  same  fact,  for,  as  I  told  you  when  I 
began  to  speak,  I  was  obliged  to  leave  my  place  to 
disencumber  myself  from  their  names. 

This  evidence  of  Mr.  Middleton’s  as  to  the  29th  of 
May,  must,  I  should  think,  convince  every  man  how  10 
dangerous  and  unjust  it  is  in  witnesses,  however  per-  . 
feet  their  memories,  or  however  great  their  veracity, 
to  come  into  a  criminal  court  where  a  man  is  standing 
for  his  life  or  death,  retailing  scraps  of  sentences 
which  they  had  heard  by  thrusting  themselves,  from  15 
curiosity,  into  places  where  their  business  did  not  lead 
them ;  ignorant  of  the  views  and  tempers  of  both 
speakers  and  hearers,  attending  only  to  a  part,  and, 
perhaps  innocently,  misrepresenting  that  part,  from 
not  having  heard  the  whole.  20 

The  witnesses  for  the  Crown  all  tell  you  that  Lord 
George  said  he  would  not  go  up  with  the  petition 
unless  he  was  attended  by  twenty  thousand  people  who 
had  signed  it.  There  they  think  proper  to  stop,  as  if 
he  had  said  nothing  further;  leaving  you  to  say  to  25 
yourselves,  what  possible  purpose  could  he  have  in 
assembling  such  a  multitude  on  the  very  day  the 
House  was  to  receive  the  petition  ?  Why  should  he 
urge  it,  when  the  committee  had  before  thought  it  inex¬ 
pedient  ?  And  why  should  he  refuse  to  present  it  30 
unless  so  attended  ?  Hear  what  Mr.  Middleton  says. 
He  tells  you  that  my  noble  friend  informed  the  peti- 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


135 


tioners  that  if  it  was  decided  they  were  not  to  attend 
to  consider  how  their  petition  should  be  presented, 
he  would  with  the  greatest  pleasure  go  up  with  it 
alone.  But  that,  if  it  was  resolved  they  should  attend 
5  it  in  person,  he  expected  twenty  thousand  at  the 
least  should  meet  him  in  St.  George’s  Fields,  for 
that  otherwise  the  petition  would  be  considered  as  a 
forgery ;  it  having  been  thrown  out  in  the  House  and 
elsewhere  that  the  repeal  of  the  bill  was  not  the  serious 
10  wish  of  the  people  at  large,  and  that  the  petition  was 
a  mere  list  of  names  on  parchment,  and  not  of  men  in 
sentiment.  Mr.  Middleton  added,  that  Lord  George 
adverted  to  the  same  objections  having  been  made  to 
many  other  petitions,  and  he,  therefore,  expressed  an 
15  anxiety  to  show  Parliament  how  many  were  actually 
interested  in  its  success,  which  he  reasonably  thought 
would  be  a  strong  inducement  to  the  House  to  listen 
to  it.  The  language  imputed  to  him  falls  in  most 
naturally  with  this  purpose  :  I  wish  Parliament  to  see 
20  who  and  what  you  are  ;  dress  yourselves  in  your  best 
clothes  ” — which  Mr.  Hay  (who,  I  suppose,  had  been 
reading  the  indictment)  thought  it  would  be  better  to 
call  Array  yourselves.”  He  desired  that  not  a 
stick  should  be  seen  among  them,  and  that,  if  any  man 
25  insulted  another,  or  was  guilty  of  any  breach  of  the 
peace,  he  was  to  be  given  up  to  the  magistrates.  Mr. 
Attorney-General,  to  persuade  you  that  this  was  all 
color  and  deceit,  says,  How  was  a  magistrate  to 
face  forty  thousand  men  ?  How  were  offenders  in 
30  such  a  multitude  to  be  amenable  to  the  civil  power  ?  ” 
What  a  shameful  perversion  of  a  plain,  peaceable  pur¬ 
pose  !  To  be  sure,  if  the  multitude  had  been  assem- 


136 


-  LORD  ERSKINE. 


bled  to  resist  the  magistrate,  offenders  could  not  be 
secured.  But  they  themselves  were  ordered  to  appre¬ 
hend  all  offenders  among  them,  and  to  deliver  them 
up  to  justice.  They  themselves  were  to  surrender 
their  fellows  to  civil  authority  if  they  offended.  5 

But  it  seems  that  Lord  George  ought  to  have  fore¬ 
seen  that  so  great  a  multitude  could  not  be  collected 
without  mischief.^^  Gentlemen,  we  are  not  trying 
whether  he  might  or  ought  to  have  foreseen  mischief, 
but  whether  he  wickedly  and  traitorously precoficerted  10 
and  designed  it.  But  if  he  be  an  object  of  censure  for 
not  foreseeing  it,  what  shall  we  say  to  government, 
that  took  no  steps  to  prevent  it,  that  issued  no  procla¬ 
mation,  warning  the  people  of  the  danger  and  illegality 
of  such  an  assembly  ?  If  a  peaceable  multitude,  with  15 
a  petition  in  their  hands,  be  an  army,  and  if  the  noise 
and  confusion  inseparable  from  numbers,  though  with¬ 
out  violence  or  the  purpose  of  violence,  constitute 
war,  what  shall  be  said  of  that  government  which 
remained  from  Tuesday  to  Friday,  knowing  that  an  20 
army  was  collecting  to  levy  war  by  public  advertise¬ 
ment,  yet  had  not  a  single  soldier,  no,  nor  even  a  con¬ 
stable,  to  protect  the  state  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  come  forth  to  do  that  for  government 
which  its  own  servant,  the  Attorney-General,  has  not  25 
done.  I  come  forth  to  rescue  it  from  the  eternal 
infamy  which  would  fall  upon  its  head,  if  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  its  own  advocate  were  to  be  believed.  But 
government  has  an  unanswerable  defense.  It  neither 

This  paragraph  shows  well  two  characteristics  of  this  speech  :  30 
the  frankness  with  which  Lord  Erskine  stated  an  objection,  and 
the  skill  with  which  he  turned  it  against  his  opponents. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


137 


did  nor  could  possibly  enter  into  the  head  of  any  man 
in  authority  to  prophesy — human  wisdom  could  not 
divine — that  wicked  and  desperate  men,  taking  ad¬ 
vantage  of  the  occasion  which,  perhaps,  an  imprudent 
5  zeal  for  religion  had  produced,  would  dishonor  the 
cause  of  all  religions,  by  the  disgraceful  acts  which 
followed. 

Why,  then,  is  it  to  be  said  that  Lord  George  Gor¬ 
don  is  a  traitor,  who,  without  proof  of  any  hostile 
10  purpose  to  the  government  of  his  country,  only  did  not 
foresee  what  nobody  else  foresaw — what  those  people 
whose  business  it  is  to  foresee  every  danger  that 
threatens  the  state,  and  to  avert  it  by  the  interference 
of  magistracy,  though  they  could  not  but  read  the  ad- 
15  vertisement,  neither  did  nor  could  possibly  appre¬ 
hend?^^ 

How  are  these  observations  attempted  to  be  an¬ 
swered  ?  Only  by  asserting,  without  evidence  or  even 
reasonable  argument,  that  all  this  was  color  and 
20  deceit.  Gentlemen,  I  again  say  that  it  is  scandalous 
and  reproachful,  and  not  to  be  justified  by  any  duty 
which  can  possibly  belong  to  an  advocate  at  the  bar 
of  an  English  court  of  justice,  to  declare,  without  any 
proof  or  attempt  at  proof,  that  all  a  man’s  expres- 
25  sions,  however  peaceable,  however  quiet,  however 
constitutional,  however  loyal,  are  all  fraud  and  villainy. 
Look,  gentlemen,  to  the  issues  of  life,  which  I  before 
called  the  evidence  of  Heaven  :  I  call  them  so  still. 
Truly  may  I  call  them  so,  when,  out  of  a  book  com- 

30  22  “  xhis  was  the  great  turning-point  of  the  case,  and  it  would 

have  been  impossible  to  state  it  in  more  simple  or  more  powerful 
terms.” — Goodrich. 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


138 

piled  by  the  Crown  from  the  petition  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  containing  the  names  of  all  who  signed 
it,  and  which  was  printed  in  order  to  prevent  any  of 
that  number  being  summoned  upon  the  jury  to  try  this 
indictment,  not  one  criminal^  or  even  a  suspected  name  is  5 
to  be  founds  among  this  defamed  host  of  petitioners  ! 

After  this,  gentlemen,  I  think  the  Crown  ought, 
in  decency,  to  be  silent.  I  see  the  effect  this  circum¬ 
stance  has  upon  you,  and  I  know  I  am  warranted  in 
my  assertion  of  the  fact.  If  I  am  not,  why  did  not  10 
the  Attorney-General  produce  the  record  of  some  con¬ 
victions,  and  compare  it  with  the  list  ?  I  thank  them, 
therefore,  for  the  precious  compilation,  which,  though 
they  did  not  produce,  they  cannot  stand  up  and 
deny.  15 

Solomon  [Job]  says,  Oh  that  mine  adversary  had 
written  a  book  !  ”  My  adversary  has  written  a  book, 
and  out  of  it  I  am  entitled  to  pronounce  that  it  can¬ 
not  again  be  decently  asserted  that  Lord  George 
Gordon,  in  exhorting  an  innocent  and  unimpeached  20 
multitude  to  be  peaceable  and  quiet,  was  exciting 
them  to  violence  against  the  state. 

What  is  the  evidence,  then,  on  which  this  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  mob  is  to  be  proved  }  Only  that  they 
had  blue  cockades?^  Are  you  or  am  I  answerable  for  25 
every  man  who  wears  a  blue  cockade  ?  If  a  man 
commits  murder  in  my  livery  or  in  yours,  without 
command,  counsel,  or  consent,  is  the  murder  ours  ? 

In  all  cuffiulative^  constructive  treasons,  you  are  to 

“  The  members  of  the  Association,  at  the  meeting  of  St.  30 

George’s  Fields,  were  distinguished  by  wearing  cockades,  on 

* 

which  were  inscribed  the  words  ‘  No  Popery  ’ !  ” — Goodrich, 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


139 


judge  from  the  tenor  of  a  man’s  behavior,  not  from 
crooked  and  disjointed  parts  of  it.  Nemo  repente 
fuit  turpissimus.”  No  man  can  possibly  be  guilty 
of  this  crime  by  a  sudden  impulse  of  the  mind,  as  he 
5  may  of  some  others  ;  and,  certainly,  Lord  George 
Gordon  stands  upon  the  evidence  at  Coachmakers* 
Hall  as  pure  and  white  as  snow.  He  stands  so  upon 
the  evidence  of  a  man  who  had  differed  with  him  as 
to  the  expediency  of  his  conduct,  yet  who  swears 
10 that  from  the  time  he  took  the  chair  till  the  period 
which  is  the  subject  of  inquiry,  there  was  no  blame 
in  him. 

You,  therefore,  are  bound  as  Christian  men  to  be¬ 
lieve  that,  when  he  came  to  St.  George’s  Fields  that 
15  morning,  he  did  not  come  there  with  the  hostile  pur¬ 
pose  of  repealing  a  law  by  rebellion. 

But  still  it  seems  all  his  behavior  at  Coachmakers’ 
Hall  was  color  and  deceit.  Let  us  see,  therefore, 
whether  this  body  of  men,  when  assembled,  answered 
20 the  description  of  that  which  I  have  stated  to  be  the 
purpose  of  him  who  assembled  them.  Were  they  a 
multitude  arrayed  for  terror  or  force  ?  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  you  have  heard,  upon  the  evidence  of  men  whose 
veracity  is  not  to  be  impeached,  that  they  were  sober, 
25  decent,  quiet,  peaceable  tradesmen  ;  that  they  were 
all  of  the  better  sort ;  all  well-dressed  and  well-be¬ 
haved  ;  and  that  there  was  not  a  man  among  them 
who  had  any  one  weapon,  offensive  or  defensive.  Sir 
Philip  Jennings  Clerke^'^  tells  you  he  went  into  the 

30  24  “  This  gentleman,  in  giving  evidence  on  behalf  of  the  pris¬ 

oner,  deposed  to  the  peaceable  behavior  of  the  members  of  the 
Association  who  formed  the  original  procession  to  carry  up  the 


140 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


Fields  ;  that  he  drove  through  them,  talked  to  many 
individuals  among  them,  who  all  told  him  that  it  was 
not  their  wish  to  persecute  the  Papists,  but  that  they 
were  alarmed  at  the  progress  of  their  religion  from 
their  schools.  Sir  Philip  further  told  you  that  he  never  5 
saw  a  more  peaceable  multitude  in  his  life  ;  and  it 
appears  upon  the  oaths  of  all  who  were  present,*^  that 
Lord  George  Gordon  went  round  among  them,  desir¬ 
ing  peace  and  quietness. 

Mark  his  conduct,  when  he  heard  from  T^Ir.  Evans’^®  10 
that  a  low,  riotous  set  of  people  were  assembled  in 
Palace  Yard.  Mr.  Evans,  being  a  member  of  the 
Protestant  Association,  and  being  desirous  that  noth¬ 
ing  bad  might  happen  from  the  assembly,  went  in  his 
carriage  with  Mr.  Spinage  to  St.  George's  Fields,  to  15 
inform  Lord  George  that  there  were  such  people  as¬ 
sembled  (probably  Papists),  who  were  determined  to 
do  mischief.  The  moment  he  told  him  of  what  he 

petition,  and  whom  he  distinguished  from  the  mob  which  after¬ 
ward  assembled  tumultuously  about  the  House  of  Commons.*' —  20 
Goodrich. 

“  Sir  James  Lowther,  another  of  the  prisoner’s  witnesses, 
proved  that  Lord  George  Gordon  and  Sir  Philip  Jennings  Clerke 
accompanied  him  in  his  carriage  from  the  House,  and  the  former 
entreated  the  multitudes  collected  to  disperse  quietly  to  their  25 
homes.” — Goodrich. 

“  A  surgeon,  who  also  was  examined  for  the  defense,  and  de¬ 
posed  that  he  saw  Lord  George  Gordon  in  the  midst  of  one  of  the 
companies  in  St.  George's  Fields,  and  that  it  appeared  his  wish  at 
that  time,  from  his  conduct  and  expressions,  that,  to  prevent  all  30 
disorder,  he  should  not  be  attended  by  the  multitude  across  West¬ 
minster  Bridge.  This  gentleman’s  evidence  was  confirmed  by 
that  of  other  witnesses.” — Goodrich. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


141 

heard,  whatever  his  original  plan  might  have  been,  he 
instantly  changed  it  on  seeing  the  impropriety  of  it. 

Do  you  intend,”  said  Mr.  Evans,  to  carry  up  all 
these  men  with  the  petition  to  the  House  of  Com- 
5  mons  ?  ”  “  Oh  no  !  no  !  not  by  any  means  ;  I  do  not 
mean  to  carry  them  all  up.”  ‘‘  Will  you  give  me 
leave,”  said  Mr.  Evans,  ‘‘  to  go  round  to  the  different 
divisions,  and  tell  the  people  it  is  not  your  Lordship’s 
purpose?”  He  answered,  ‘‘By  all  means.”  And 
10  Mr.  Evans  accordingly  went,  but  it  was  impossible  to 
guide  such  a  number  of  people,  peaceable  as  they 
were.  They  were  all  desirous  to  go  forward  ;  and 
Lord  George  was  at  last  obliged  to  leave  the  Fields, 
exhausted  with  heat  and  fatigue,  beseeching  them  to 
15  be  peaceable  and  quiet.  Mrs.  Whitingham  set  him 
down  at  the  House  of  Commons  ;  and  at  the  very 
time  that  he  thus  left  them  in  perfect  harmony  and 
good  order,  it  appears,  by  the  evidence  of  Sir  Philip 
Jennings  Clerke,  that  Palace  Yard  was  in  an  uproar, 

V 

20  filled  with  mischievous  boys  and  the  lowest  dregs  of 
the  people. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  all  along  told  you  that  the  Crown 
was  aware  that  it  had  no  case  of  treason,  without  con¬ 
necting  the  noble  prisoner  with  consequences,  which 
25  it  was  in  some  luck  to  find  advocates  to  state,  without 
proof  to  support  it.  I  can  only  speak  for  myself,  that, 
small  as  my  chance  is  (as  times  go)  of  ever  arriving 
at  high  office,  I  would  not  accept  of  it  on  the  terms  of 
being  obliged  to  produce  against  a  fellow-citizen  that 
30  which  I  have  been  witness  to  this  day.  For  Mr. 
Attorney-General  perfectly  well  knew  the  innocent 
and  laudable  motive  with  which  the  protection  was 


142 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


given,  that  he  exhibited  as  an  evidence  of  guilt 
yet  it  was  produced  to  insinuate  that  Lord  George 
Gordon,  knowing  himself  to  be  the  ruler  of  those 
villains,  set  himself  up  as  a  savior  from  their  fury. 
We  called  Lord  Stormont  to  explain  this  matter  to  5 
you,  who  told  you  that  Lord  George  Gordon  came  to 
Buckingham  House,  and  begged  to  see  the  King,  say¬ 
ing,  he  might  be  of  great  use  in  quelling  the  riots  ; 
and  can  there  be  on  earth  a  greater  proof  of  conscious 
innocence?  For  if  he  had  been  the  wicked  mover  of  10 
them,  would  he  have  gone  to  the  King  to  have  con¬ 
fessed  it,  by  offering  to  recall  his  followers  from  the 
mischiefs  he  had  provoked  ?  No  !  But  since,  not¬ 
withstanding  a  public  protest  issued  by  himself  and 
the  Association,  reviling  the  authors  of  mischief,  the  15 
Protestant  cause  was  still  made  the  pretext,  he  thought 
his  public  exertions  might  be  useful,  as  they  might 
tend  to  remove  the  prejudices  which  wicked  men  had 
diffused.  The  King  thought  so  likewise,  and  there¬ 
fore  (as  appears  by  Lord  Stormont)  refused  to  see  20 
Lord  George  till  he  had  given  the  test  of  his  loyalty 
by  such  exertions.  But  sure  I  am,  our  gracious  Sov¬ 
ereign  meant  no  trap  for  innocence,  nor  ever  recom¬ 
mended  it  as  such  to  his  servants. 


‘'A  witness  of  the  name  of  Richard  Pond,  called  in  support  25 
of  the  prosecution,  had  sworn  that,  hearing  his  house  was  about 
to  be  pulled  down,  he  applied  to  the  prisoner  for  protection, 
and  in  consequence  received  the  following  document  signed  by 
him  :  ‘  All  true  friends  to  Protestants,  I  hope,  will  be  particular, 
and  do  no  injury  to  the  property  of  any  true  Protestant,  as  I  am  30 
well  assured  the  proprietor  of  this  house  is  a  staunch  and  worthy 
friend  to  the  cause.  G.  Gordon.’  ” — Goodnch. 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


143 


Lord  George’s  language  was  simply  this:  “The 
multitude  pretend  to  be  perpetrating  these  acts,  under 
the  authority  of  the  Protestant  petition  ;  I  assure 
your  Majesty  they  are  not  the  Protestant  Association, 
5  and  I  shall  be  glad  to  be  of  any  service  in  suppress¬ 
ing  them.”  I  say  by  God,  that  man  is  a  ruffian  who 
shall,  after  this,  presume  to  build  upon  such  honest, 
artless  conduct,  as  an  evidence  of  guilt. Gentle¬ 
men,  if  Lord  George  Gordon  had  been  guilty  of  high 
10  treason  (as  is  assumed  to-day)  in  the  face  of  the 
whole  Parliament,  how  are  all  its  members  to  defend 
themselves  from  the  misprision^®  of  suffering  such  a 
person  to  go  at  large  and  to  approach  his  sovereign  ? 
The  man  who  conceals  the  perpetration  of  treason  is 
15  himself  a  traitor  ;  but  they  are  all  perfectly  safe,  for 
nobody  thought  of  treason  till  fears  arising  from 
another  quarter  bewildered  their  senses.  The  King, 

“  The  effect  produced  on  the  jury  and  spectators  by  this  sud¬ 
den  burst  of  feeling,  is  represented  by  eye-witnesses  to  have  been 
20  such  as  to  baffle  all  powers  of  description.  It  was  wholly  unpre¬ 
meditated,  the  instantaneous  result  of  that  sympathy  which  exists 
between  a  successful  speaker  and  his  audience.  In  uttering  this 
appeal  to  his  Maker,  Mr.  Erskine's  tone  was  one  of  awe  and  deep 
reverence,  without  the  slightest  approach  toward  the  profane  use 
25  of  the  words,  but  giving  them  all  the  solemnity  of  a  judicial  oath. 
The  magic  of  his  eye,  gesture,  and  countenance  beaming  with 
emotion,  completed  the  impression,  and  made  it  irresistible.  It 
was  a  thing  which  a  man  could  do  but  once  in  his  life.  Mr. 
Erskine  attempted  it  again  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  utterly 
30  Goodrich. 

“  Misprision  of  treason  consists  in  the  bare  knowledge  and 
concealment  of  treason,  without  any  degree  of  assent  thereto,  for 
any  assent  makes  the  party  a  principal  traitor.’’ — “  Blackstone’s 
Comm.,”  iv.  129,  I. — Goodrich. 


144 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


therefore,  and  his  servants,  very  wisely  accepted  his 
promise  of  assistance,  and  he  flew  with  honest  zeal  to 
fulfill  it.  Sir  Philip  Jennings  Clerke  tells  you  that  he 
made  use  of  every  expression  which  it  was  possible  for 
a  man  in  such  circumstances  to  employ.  He  begged  5 
them,  for  God’s  sake,  to  disperse  and  go  home ; 
declared  his  hope  that  the  petition  would  be  granted, 
but  that  rioting  was  not  the  way  to  effect  it.  Sir 
Philip  said  he  felt  himself  bound,  without  being  par¬ 
ticularly  asked,  to  say  everything  he  could  in  protec-  lo 
tion  of  an  injured  and  innocent  man,  and  repeated 
again,  that  there  was  not  an  art  which  the  prisoner 
could  possibly  make  use  of,  that  he  did  not  zealously 
employ  ;  but  that  it  was  all  in  vain.  I  began,”  says 
he,  “to  tremble  for  myself,  when  Lord  George  read  15 
the  resolution  of  the  House,  which  was  hostile  to 
them,  and  said  their  petition  would  not  be  taken  into 
consideration  until  they  were  quiet.”  But  did  he  say, 

“  therefore  go  on  to  burn  and  destroy  ”  ?  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  he  helped  to  pen  that  motion,  and  read  it  to  the  20 
multitude,  as  one  which  he  himself  had  approved. 
After  this  he  went  into  the  coach  with  Sheriff  Pugh, 
in  the  city  ;  and  there  it  was,  in  the  presence  of  the 
very  magistrate  whom  he  was  assisting  to  keep  the 
peace,  that  he  publicly  signed  the  protection  which  has  25 
been  read  in  evidence  against  him ;  although  Mr. 
Fisher,  who  now  stands  in  my  presence,  confessed  in 
:he  Privy  Council  that  he  himself  had  granted  similar 
protections  to  various  people — yet  he  luas  dismissed  as 
having  done  nothing  but  his  duty,  3c 

This  is  the  plain  and  simple  truth  ;  and  for  his  just 
obedience  to  his  Majesty’s  request,  do  the  King’s  serv- 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


I4S 


ants  come  to-day  into  his  court,  where  he  is  supposed 
in  person  to  sit,  to  turn  that  obedience  into  the  crime 
of  high  treason,  and  to  ask  you  to  put  him  to  death 
for  it. 

5  Gentlemen,  you  have  now  heard,  upon  the  solemn 
oaths  of  honest,  disinterested  men,  a  faithful  history 
of  the  conduct  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  from  the  day 
that  he  became  a  member  of  the  Protestant  Associa¬ 
tion  to  the  day  that  he  was  committed  a  prisoner  to 
lothe  Tower.  And  I  have  no  doubt,  from  the  attention 
with  which  I  have  been  honored  from  the  beginning, 
that  you  have  still  kept  in  your  minds  the  principles 
to  which  I  entreated  you  would  apply  it,  and  that  you 
have  measured  it  by  that  standard.  You  have,  there- 
15  fore,  only  to  look  back  to  the  whole  of  it  together  ;  to 
reflect  on  all  you  have  heard  concerning  him  ;  to  trace 
him  in  your  recollection  through  every  part  of  the 
transaction  ;  and,  considering  it  with  one  manly,  liberal 
view,  to  ask  your  own  honest  hearts,  whether  you  can 
20  say  that  this  noble  and  unfortunate  youth  is  a  wicked 
and  deliberate  traitor,  who  deserves  by  your  verdict 
to  suffer  a  shameful  and  ignominious  death,  which 
will  stain  the  ancient  honors  of  his  house  forever. 

The  crime  which  the  Crown  would  have  fixed  upon 
25  him  is,  that  he  assembled  the  Protestant  Association 
round  the  House  of  Commons,  not  merely  to  influence 
and  persuade  Parliament  by  the  earnestness  of  their 
supplications,  but  actually  to  coerce  it  by  hostile, 
rebellious  force  ;  that,  finding  himself  disappointed 
30  in  the  success  of  that  coercion,  he  afterward  incited 
his  followers  to  abolish  the  legal  indulgences  to 
Papists,  which  the  object  of  the  petition  was  to  repeal, 


146 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


by  the  burning  of  their  houses  of  worship,  and  the 
destruction  of  their  property,  which  ended,  at  last,  in 
a  general  attack  on  the  property  of  all  orders  of  men, 
religious  and  civil,  on  the  public  treasures  of  the 
nation,  and  on  the  very  being  of  the  government.^®  5 

To  support  a  charge  of  so  atrocious  and  unnatural  a 
complexion,  the  laws  of  the  most  arbitrary  nations 
would  require  the  most  incontrovertible  proof.  Either 
the  villain  must  have  been  taken  in  the  overt  act  of 
wickedness,  or,  if  he  worked  in  secret  upon  others,  10 
his  guilt  must  have  been  brought  out  by  the  discovery 
of  a  conspiracy,  or  by  the  consistent  tenor  of  crimi¬ 
nality.  The  very  worst  inquisitor  that  ever  dealt  in 
blood  would  vindicate  the  torture,  by  plausibility  at 
least,  and  by  the  semblance  of  truth.  i 

What  evidence,  then,  will  a  jury  of  Englishmen  ex¬ 
pect  from  the  servants  of  the  Crown  of  England,  before 
they  deliver  up  a  brother  accused  before  them  to  igno¬ 
miny  and  death  ?  What  proof  will  their  consciences 
require  ?  What  will  their  plain  and  manly  understand-  20 
ings  accept  of  ?  What  does  the  immemorial  custom  of 
their  fathers,  and  the  written  law  of  this  land,  warrant 
them  in  demanding  ?  Nothing  less,  in  any  case  of 
blood,  than  the  clearest  and  most  unequivocal  convic¬ 
tion  of  guilt.  But  in  this  case  the  Act  has  not  even  25 
trusted  to  the  humanity  and  justice  of  our  general  law, 
but  has  said,  in  plain,  rough,  expressive  terms — prcrv- 
ably  ;  that  is,  says  Lord  Coke,  not  upon  conjectural pre- 

^  “  At  the  time  of  the  interference  of  the  military,  the  mob  had 
attacked  the  Pay  Office,  and  were  attempting  to  break  into  the  30 
Bank  ;  and  to  aid  the  work  of  the  incendiaries,  a  large  party  had 
been  sent  to  cut  the  pipes  of  thr  New  River.” 


ir> 


DEFENSE  OE  GORDON 


147 


sumptions^  or  inferences^  or  strains  of  wit^  but  upon 
direct  and  plain  proof.  For  the  King,  Lords,  and 
Commons,”  continues  that  great  lawyer,  did  not  use 
the  \NOxd probably,  for  then  a  common  argument  might 
5  have  served,  but  provably,  which  signifies  the  highest 
force  of  demonstration.”  And  what  evidence,  gentle¬ 
men  of  the  jury,  does  the  Crown  offer  to  you  in  com¬ 
pliance  with  these  sound  and  sacred  doctrines  of 
justice  ?  A  few  broken,  interrupted,  disjointed  words, 
10  without  context  or  connection — uttered  by  the  speaker 
in  agitation  and  heat — heard,  by  those  who  relate 
them  to  you,  in  the  midst  of  tumult  and  confusion — 
and  even  those  words,  mutilated  as  they  are,  in  direct 
opposition  to,  and  inconsistent  with  repeated  and 
15  earnest  declarations  delivered  at  the  very  same  time 
and  on  the  very  same  occasion,  related  to  you  by  a 
much  greater  number  of  persons,  and  absolutely 
incompatible  with  the  whole  tenor  of  his  conduct. 
Which  of  us  all,  gentlemen,  would  be  safe,  standing  at 
20  the  bar  of  God  or  man,  if  we  were  not  to  be  judged 
by  the  regular  current  of  our  lives  and  conversations, 
but  by  detached  and  unguarded  expressions,  picked 
out  by  malice,  and  recorded,  without  context  or  cir¬ 
cumstances,  against  us  ?  Yet  such  is  the  only  evidence 
25  on  which  the  Crown  asks  you  to  dip  your  hands,  and 
to  stain  your  consciences,  in  the  innocent  blood  of  the 
noble  and  unfortunate  youth  who  stands  before  you 
— on  the  single  evidence  of  the  words  you  have  heard 
from  their  witnesses  (for  of  what  but  words  have  you 
30  heard  ?),  which,  even  if  they  had  stood  uncontroverted 
by  the  proofs  that  have  swallowed  them  up,  or  unex¬ 
plained  by  circumstances  which  destroy  their  malig- 


148 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


nity,  could  not,  at  the  very  worst,  amount  in  law  to 
more  than  a  breach  of  the  Act  against  tumultuous 
petitioning  (if  such  an  act  still  exists)  ;  since  the 
worst  malice  of  his  enemies  has  not  been  able  to 
bring  up  one  single  witness  to  say  that  he  ever  directed^  5 
countenanced^  or  approved  rebellious  force  against  the 
Legislature  of  this  country.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter 
of  astonishment  to  me  that  men  can  keep  the  natural 
color  in  their  cheeks  when  they  ask  for  human  life, 
even  on  the  Crown's  original  case,  though  the  prisoner  10 
had  made  no  defense. 

But  will  they  still  continue  to  ask  for  it  after  what 
they  have  heard  ?  I  will  just  remind  the  Solicitor- 
General,  before  he  begins  his  reply,  what  matter  he 
has  to  encounter.  He  has  to  encounter  this  :  that  15 
the  going  up  in  a  body  was  not  even  originated  by 
Lord  George,  but  by  others  in  his  absence — that 
when  proposed  by  him  officially  as  chairman,  it  was 
adopted  by  the  whole  Association,  and  consequently 
was  their  act  as  much  as  his — that  it  was  adopted,  not  20 
in  a  conclave,  but  with  open  doors,  and  the  resolu¬ 
tion  published  to  all  the  world — that  it  was  known,  of 
course,  to  the  ministers  and  magistrates  of  the  country, 
who  did  not  even  signify  to  him,  or  to  anybody  else, 
its  illegality  or  danger — that  decency  and  peace  were  25 
enjoined  and  commanded — that  the  regularity  of  the 
procession,  and  those  badges  of  distinction,  which  are 
now  cruelly  turned  into  the  charge  of  an  hostile  array 
against  him,  were  expressly  and  publicly  directed  for 
the  preservation  of  peace  and  the  prevention  of  30 
tumult — that  while  the  House  was  deliberating,  he 
repeatedly  entreated  them  to  behave  with  decency 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON. 


149 


and  peace,  and  to  retire  to  their  houses,  though  hf 
knew  not  that  he  was  speaking  to  the  enemies  of  his 
cause — that  when  they  at  last  dispersed,  no  man 
thought  or  imagined  that  treason  had  been  committed 
5  — that  he  retired  to  bed,  where  he  lay  unconscious 
that  ruffians  were  ruining  him  by  their  disorders  in 
the  night — that  on  Monday  he  published  an  adver¬ 
tisement,  reviling  the  authors  of  the  riots,  and,  as  the 
Protestant  cause  had  been  wickedly  made  the  pretext 
10  for  them,  solemnly  enjoined  all  who  wished  well  to  it 
to  be  obedient  to  the  laws  (nor  has  the  Crown  even 
attempted  to  prove  that  he  had  either  given,  or  that 
he  afterward  gave  secret  instructions  in  opposition  to 
that  public  admonition) — that  he  afterward  begged  an 
15  audience  to  receive  the  King's  commands — that  he 
waited  on  the  ministers — that  he  attended  his  duty  in 
Parliament — and  when  the  multitude  (among  whom 
there  was  not  a  man  of  the  associated  Protestants) 
again  assembled  on  the  Tuesday,  under  pretense  of 
20  the  Protestant  cause,  he  offered  his  services,  and  read 
a  resolution  of  the  House  to  them,  accompanied  with 
every  expostulation  which  a  zeal  for  peace  could 
possibly  inspire — that  he  afterward,  in  pursuance  of 
the  King's  direction,  attended  the  magistrates  in  their 
25  duty,  honestly  and  honorably  exerting  all  his  powen 
to  quell  the  fury  of  the  multitude  ;  a  conduct  which, 
to  the  dishonor  of  the  Crown,  has  been  scandalously 
turned  against  him,  by  criminating  him  with  protec¬ 
tions  granted  publicly  in  the  coach  of  the  Sheriff  of 
30  London,  whom  he  was  assisting  in  his  office  of  magis¬ 
tracy  ;  although  protections  of  a  similar  nature  were, 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  whole  Privy  Council,  granted 


LORD  ERSKINE. 


150 

by  Mr.  Fisher  himself,  who  now  stands  in  my  presence 
unaccused  and  unreproved,  but  who,  if  the  Crown 
that  summoned  him  durst  have  called  him,  would 
have  dispersed  to  their  confusion  the  slightest  impu¬ 
tation  of  guilt.  5 

What,  then,  has  produced  this  trial  for  high  treason, 
or  given  it,  when  produced,  the  seriousness  and  solem¬ 
nity  it  wears?  AVhat  but  the  inversion  of  all  justice, 
by  judging  from  cojisequences^  instead  of  from  causes 
and  designs  ?  What  but  the  artful  manner  in  which  10 
the  Crown  has  endeavored  to  blend  the  petitioning  in 
a  body,  and  the  zeal  with  which  an  animated  disposi¬ 
tion  conducted  it,  with  the  melancholy  crimes  that 
followed  ?  crimes  which  the  shameful  indolence  of  our 
magistrates — which  the  total  extinction  of  all  police  15 
and  government  suffered  to  be  committed  in  broad 
day,  and  in  the  delirium  of  drunkenness,  by  an 
unarmed  banditti,  without  a  head — without  plan  or 
object — and  without  a  refuge  from  the  instant  gripe 
of  justice  :  a  banditti  with  whom  the  associated  Prot- 20 
estants  and  their  president  had  no  manner  of  connec¬ 
tion,  and  whose  cause  they  overturned,  dishonored, 
and  ruined. 

How  unchristian,  then,  is  it  to  attempt,  without 
evidence,  to  infect  the  imaginations  of  men  who  are  25 
sworn,  dispassionately  and  disinterestedly,  to  try  the 
trivial  offense  of  assembling  a  multitude  with  a  peti¬ 
tion  to  repeal  a  law  (which  has  happened  so  often  in 
all  our  memories),  by  blending  it  with  the  fatal  catas¬ 
trophe,  on  which  every  man’s  mind  may  be  supposed  3o 
to  retain  some  degree  of  irritation  !  O  fie  !  O  fie  ! 

Is  the  intellectual  seat  of  justice  to  be  thus  impiously 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON 


151 

shaken  ?  Are  your  benevolent  propensities  to  be 
thus  disappointed  and  abused  ?  Do  they  wish  you, 
while  you  are  listening  to  the  evidence,  to  connect  it 
with  unforeseen  consequences,  in  spite  of  reason  and 
5  truth  ?  Is  it  their  object  to  hang  the  millstone  of 
prejudice  around  his  innocent  neck  to  sink  him  ?  If 
there  be  such  men,  may  Heaven  forgive  them  for  the 
attempt,  and  inspire  you  with  fortitude  and  wisdom 
to  discharge  your  duty  with  calm,  steady,  and  reflect- 
10  ing  minds  ! 

Gentlemen,  I  have  no  manner  of  doubt  that  vou 
will.^^  I  am  sure  you  cannot  but  see,  notwithstanding 
my  great  inability,  increased  by  a  perturbation  of  mind 
(arising,  thank  God  !  from  no  dishonest  cause),  that 
15  there  has  been  not  only  no  evidence  on  the  part  of 
the  Crown  to  fix  the  guilt  of  the  late  commotions 
upon  the  prisoner,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  we  have 
been  able  to  resist  the  probability,  I  might  almost  say 
the  possibility  of’  the  charge,  not  only  by  living  wit- 
20  nesses,  whom  we  only  ceased  to  call  because  the  trial 
would  never  have  ended,  but  by  the  evidence  of  all 

“  This  peroration  is  remarkable  for  the  quiet  and  subdued  tone 
which  reigns  throughout  it.  A  less  skilful  advocate  would  have 
closed  with  a  powerful  appeal  to  the  feelings  of  the  jury,  but  Mr. 
25  Erskine,  with  that  quick  instinct  which  enabled  him  to  read  the 
emotions  of  men  in  their  countenances,  saw  that  his  cause  was 
gained.  He  chose,  therefore,  to  throw  over  his  concluding  remarks 
the  appearance  of  a  perfect  understanding  between  him  and  the 
jury  that  the  verdict  of  acquittal  was  already  made  up  in  their 
30  minds,  so  that  any  appeal  to  their  feelings  would  be  wholly 
out  of  place.  In  his  closing  sentence,  therefore,  he  does  not 
ask  a  decision  in  his  favor  but  takes  it  as  a  matter  of  course.^’ — 
Goodrich, 


152 


LORD  ERSKINE, 


the  blood  that  has  paid  the  forfeit  of  that  guilt  already  ; 
an  evidence  that  1  will  take  upon  me  to  say  is  the 
strongest  and  most  unanswerable  which  the  combina¬ 
tion  of  natural  events  ever  brought  together  since  the 
beginning  of  the  world  for  the  deliverance  of  the  5 
oppressed  :  since,  in  the  late  numerous  trials  for  acts 
of  violence  and  depredation,  though  conducted  by 
the  ablest  servants  of  the  Crown,  with  a  laudable  eye 
to  the  investigation  of  the  subject  which  now  engages 
us,  no  one  fact  appeared  which  showed  any  plan,  any  lo 
object,  any  leader  ;  since,  out  of  forty-four  thousand 
persons  who  signed  the  petition  of  the  Protestants,  not 
one  was  to  be  found  among  those  who  were  convicted, 
tried,  or  even  apprehended  on  suspicion  ;  and  since, 
out  of  all  the  felons  who  were  let  loose  from  prisons,  15 
and  who  assisted  in  the  destruction  of  our  property, 
not  a  single  wretch  was  to  be  found  who  could  even 
attempt  to  save  his  own  life  by  the  plausible  promise 
of  giving  evidence  to-day. 

What  can  overturn  such  a  proof  as  this  ?  Surely  a  20 
good  man  might,  without  superstition,  believe  that 
such  a  union  of  events  was  something  more  than 
natural,  and  that  a  Divine  Providence  was  watchful 
for  the  protection  of  innocence  and  truth. 

I  may  now,  therefore,  relieve  you  from  the  pain  of  25 
hearing  me  any  longer,  and  be  myself  relieved  from 
speaking  on  a  subject  which  agitates  and  distresses 
me.  Since  Lord  George  Gordon  stands  clear  of  every 
hostile  act  or  purpose  against  the  Legislature  of  his 
country,  or  the  properties  of  his  fellow-subjects — since  30 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  conduct  repels  the  belief  of  the 
traitorous  intetition  charged  b}"  the  indictment — my 


DEFENSE  OF  GORDON, 


153' 


task  is  finished.  I  shall  make  no  address  to  your 
passions.  I  will  not  remind  you  of  the  long  and 
rigorous  imprisonment  he  has  suffered  ;  I  will  not 
speak  to  you  of  his  great  youth,  of  his  illustrious  birth, 
5  and  of  his  uniformly  animated  and  generous  zeal  in 
Parliament  for  the  Constitution  of  his  country.  Such 
topics  might  be  useful  in  the  balance  of  a  doubtful 
case  ;  yet,  even  then,  I  should  have  trusted  to  the 
honest  hearts  of  Englishmen  to  have  felt  them  with- 
loout  excitation.  At  present,  the  plain  and  rigid  rules 
of  justice  and  truth  are  sufficient  to  entitle  me  to 
your  verdict. 


PERSUASION. 


Ibenrn?  MarC>  JSeecber, 

Born  1813.  Died  1887. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  PHILHARMONIC  HALL,  LIVER¬ 
POOL,  OCTOBER  I  6,  1863. 

[When  Mr.  Beecher  went  to  England  in  1863,  English  friends 
of  the  North  urged  him  to  speak  publicly  for  Northern  interests. 
They  felt  that  as  champions  of  the  North  they  had  been  treated 
with  contempt  and  vilification,  and  that  unless  he,  as  a  prominent 
Abolitionist,  should  recognize  their  efforts,  they  were  lost.  More¬ 
over  Parliament,  appealed  to  publicly  to  declare  for  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  was  willing,  but  not  sure  of  the  non-voting  English, 
who  held  great  power.  Therefore,  friends  of  the  South  had 
arranged  to  have  orators  go  through  the  manufacturing  districts  for 
the  purpose  of  enlisting  the  sympathies  of  the  laboring  classes. 
Mr.  Beecher  spoke  with  decided  success  at  Manchester  and  Glas¬ 
gow  in  the  face  of  great  and  organized  opposition,  and  at  Edin¬ 
burgh  with  little  disturbance.  The  effect  of  these  three  speeches 
was  widely  felt.  It  looked  as  though  the  backbone  of  opposition 
had  been  broken  ;  but  really  the  mob-spirit  was  only  resting  be¬ 
fore  making  a  final  and  more  desperate  effort. 

Liverpool  was  the  headquarters  of  the  Southern  sympathizers, 
and  a  great  many  Southern  men  were  in  the  city.  The  feeling 
was  very  strong  that  if  Mr.  Beecher  should  succeed  there,  he 
would  win  the  day  ;  and  a  determined  and  desperate  effort  was  to 
be  made  to  prevent  the  delivery  of  the  speech.  The  streets  were 
placarded  with  abusive  and  scurrilous  posters,  urging  Englishmen 
to  “  see  that  he  gets  the  welcome  he  deserves.”  On  the  morning 
of  the  i6th  the  leading  papers  came  out  with  violent  and  false 
editorials  against  Mr.  Beecher.  It  was  openly  declared  that  if  he 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH. 


155 


should  dare  to  address  the  meeting,  he  would  never  leave  the  hall 
alive.  It  was  well  known  that  the  mob  was  armed  ;  not  so  well 
knov,’n  that  a  small  armed  band  of  young  men  were  in  a  com¬ 
manding  position  at  the  right  of  the  stage,  determined,  if  any  out¬ 
break  occurred,  to  protect  Mr.  Beecher. 

The  great  hall  was  packed  to  the  crushing  point.  For  some 
moments  before  the  time  fixed  for  the  commencement  of  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  there  were  cat-calls,  groans,  cheers,  and  hisses,  and  it 
was  evident  that  a  strong  force  of  the  pro-Southern  (or  at  least  of 
the  anti-Beecher)  party  had  congregated  in  front  of  the  gallery 
and  at  the  lower  end  of  the  body  of  the  hall.  When  Mr.  Beecher 
stepped  on  the  platform,  cheer  rolled  after  cheer,  and  in  the 
pauses  in  the  hurrahing  the  hissing  was  tremendous.  The  up¬ 
roar  was  long  kept  up,  but  finally  the  chairman,  by  appealing  to 
the  audience  as  Englishmen  to  stand  up  for  fair  play  and  not  to 
withhold  justice  from  a  stranger,  quieted  it.  Mr.  Beecher  was 
evidently  prepared  for  some  opposition  ;  but  he  could  hardly  have 
expected  that  his  appearance  at  the  front  of  the  platform  would 
rouse  one  portion  of  the  audience  to  a  high  state  of  enthusiasm, 
and  cause  the  other  portion  to  approach  almost  a  state  of  frenzy. 
For  some  time  it  was  doubtful  whether  he  would  be  allowed  to 
speak ;  but  those  who  sat  near  him  and  observed  his  firmly  com¬ 
pressed  lips  and  imperturbable  demeanor,  saw  at  once  that  it 
would  require  something  more  than  noise  and  spasmodic  hisses  to 
cause  Mr.  Beecher  to  lose  heart.  He  stood  calmly  at  the  edge  of 
the  platform,  waiting  for  the  noise  to  cease.  At  last  there  was  a 
lull,  and  the  chairman  made  another  appeal  to  the  meeting  for 
fair  play.  His  assurance  that  Mr.  Beecher,  after  his  speech,  would 
answer  any  questions  which  anyone  might  care  to  ask  was  not 
very  favorably  received,  and  a  series  of  disturbances  followed. 
When  the  scuffling  had  partly  subsided,  the  chairman  expressed 
his  determination  to  preserve  order  by  calling  in,  if  necessary,  the 
aid  of  the  police.  This  announcement  produced  something  like 
order,  and  Mr.  Beecher  took  up  the  advantage  and  began  his 
address. 

After  Mr.  Beecher  had  spoken  amid  almost  constant  interrup¬ 
tion  for  three  hours  his  voice  failed  him,  and  he  was  forced  to  say, 
as  he  ended  his  speech,  that  he  could  not  answer  any  questions 


15^ 


HENRY  WARD  BEECHER. 


unless  there  was  perfect  order.  He  replied  in  comparative 
quiet  to  one  or  two  written  questions,  but  when  the  disturbance 
was  renewed,  Mr.  Beecher  sat  down.  The  speech,  however,  had 
been  delivered,  and  was  reported  in  full  next  day  in  the  papers. — 

(“  Biography  of  H.  W.  Beecher,^’  by  W.  C.  Beecher  and  Rev. 

S.  Scoville,  pp.  406-26.)] 

For  more  than  twenty-five  years  I  have  been  made 
perfectly  familiar  with  popular  assemblies  in  all  parts 
of  my  country  except  the  extreme  South.  There  has 
not  for  the  whole  of  that  time  been  a  single  day  of 
my  life  when  it  would  have  been  safe  for  me  to  go  5 
South  of  Mason’s  and  Dixon’s  line  in  my  own  country, 
and  all  for  one  reason  :  my  solemn,  earnest,  persist¬ 
ent  testimony  against  that  which  I  consider  to  be  the 
most  atrocious  thing  under  the  sun — the  system  of 
American  slavery  in  a  great  free  republic.  [Cheers.]  10 
I  have  passed  through  that  early  period  when  right  of 
free  speech  was  denied  to  me.  Again  and  again  I 
have  attempted  to  address  audiences  that,  for  no 
other  crime  than  that  of  free  speech,  visited  me  with 
all  manner  of  contumelious  epithets  ;  and  now  since  15 
I  have  been  in  England,  although  I  have  met  with 
greater  kindness  and  courtesy  on  the  part  of  most 
than  I  deserved,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  I  perceive 
that  the  Southern  influence  prevails  to  some  extent 
in  England.  [Applause  and  uproar.]  It  is  my  old  20 
acquaintance  ;  I  understand  it  perfectly* — [laughter] 

*  Evidently  only  the  general  outline  of  this  speech  could  have 
been  arranged  by  Beecher  before  he  spoke,  for  many  places  show 
that  a  phrase  or  a  sentence  sprang  to  his  lips  as  the  suggestion  of 
the  moment.  All  the  introductory  matter  to  “  There  are  two  25 
dominant  races,”  details  of  the  argument,  methods  of  appeal,  and 
the  appeals  themselves,  must  have  come  spontaneously  as  the 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH, 


157 


— and  I  have  always  held  it  to  be  an  unfailing  truth 
that  where  a  man  had  a  cause  that  would  bear  exami¬ 
nation  he  was  perfectly  willing  to  have  it  spoken  about. 
[Applause.]  And  when  in  Manchester  I  saw  those 
5  huge  placards  :  “  Who  is  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ?  ” — 
[laughter,  cries  of  Quite  right,”  and  applause.] — 
and  when  in  Liverpool  I  was  told  that  there  were 
those  blood-red  placards,  purporting  to  say  what 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  had  said,  and  calling  upon 
lo  Englishmen  to  suppress  free  speech — I  tell  you  what 
I  thought.  I  thought  simply  this  :  am  glad  of  it.” 

[Laughter.]  Why  ?  Because  if  they  had  felt  per¬ 
fectly  secure,  that  you  are  the  minions  of  the  South 
and  the  slaves  of  slavery,  they  would  have  been  per- 
15  fectly  still.  [Applause  and  uproar.]  And,  therefore, 
when  I  saw  so  much  nervous  apprehension  that,  if  I 
were  permitted  to  speak — [hisses  and  applause] — 
when  I  found  they  were  afraid  to  have  me  speak — 
[hisses,  laughter,  and  No,  no  !  ”] — when  I  found  that 
20  they  considered  my  speaking  damaging  to  their  cause 
— [applause] — when  I  found  that  they  appealed  from 
facts  and  reasonings  to  mob  law  [applause  and  uproar] 
— I  said,  no  man  need  tell  me  what  the  heart  and 
secret  counsel  of  these  men  are.  They  tremble  and 
25  are  afraid.^  [Applause,  laughter,  hisses,  No,  no  !  ” 

speaker  watched  his  great  unruly  audience,  coaxing  it,  urging 
it  toward  one  or  two  statements  which  he  wished  them  to  hear. 
The  quickness  with  which  he  took  advantage  of  any  change  in 
the  mood  of  his  audience  ;  the  aptness  of  his  retorts,  his  jests,  his 
30  illustrations  ;  show  how  genuine  was  his  self-possession,  how 
great  his  mastery  of  extemporaneous  speaking. 

^  There  are  boldness  and  skill  in  the  way  Beecher  here  used  the 
placards  of  his  enemies  as  an  unanswerable  argument  against 


HENRY  WARD  BEECHER. 


and  a  voice  :  ‘‘  New  York  mob.”]  Now,  personally, 
it  is  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence  to  me  whether 
I  speak  here  to-night  or  not.  [Laughter  and  cheers.] 
But,  one  thing  is  very  certain,  if  you  do  permit  me  to 
speak  here  to-night  you  will  hear  very  plain  talking.  5 
[Applause  and  hisses.]  You  will  not  find  a  man — 
[interruption] — you  will  not  find  me  to  be  a  man  that 
dared  to  speak  about  Great  Britain  three  thousand 
miles  off,  and  then  is  afraid  to  speak  to  Great  Britain 
when  he  stands  on  her  shores.  [Immense  applause  lo 
and  hisses.]  And  if  I  do  not  mistake  the  tone  and 
temper  of  Englishmen,  they  had  rather  have  a  man 
who  opposes  them  in  a  manly  way — [applause  from 
all  parts  of  the  hall] — than  a  sneak  that  agrees  with 
them  in  an  unmanly  way.  [Applause  and  ‘‘  Bravo  !  ”]  15 
Now,  if  I  can  carry  you  with  me  by  sound  convictions, 

I  shall  be  imrnensely  glad — [applause]  ;  but  if  I  can¬ 
not  carry  you  with  me  by  facts  and  sound  arguments, 

1  do  not  wish  you  to  go  with  me  at  all  ;  and  all  that 
I  ask  is  simply  fair  play.  [Applause,  and  a  voice  :  20 
‘‘You  shall  have  it  too.”] 

Those  of  you  who  are  kind  enough  to  wish  to 
favor  my  speaking — and  you  will  observe  that  my 
voice  is  slightly  husky,  from  having  spoken  almost 
every  night  in  succession  for  some  time  past, — those  25 
who  wish  to  hear  me  will  do  me  the  kindness  sim¬ 
ply  to  sit  still,  and  to  keep  still  ;  and  I  and  my 
friends  the  Secessionists  will  make  all  the  noise. 
[Laughter.] 

There  are  two  dominant  races  in  modern  history — 30 

them,  and  roused  in  the  audience  a  feeling  that  an  effort  had  been 
made  to  trick  them. 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH, 


159 


the  Germanic  and  the  Romanic  races/  The  Germanic 
races  tend  to  personal  liberty,  to  a  sturdy  individual¬ 
ism,  to  civil  and  to  political  liberty.  The  Romanic 
race  tends  to  absolutism  in  government ;  it  is  clan- 
5  nish  ;  it  loves  chieftains  ;  it  develops  a  people  that 
crave  strong  and  showy  governments  to  support  and 
plan  for  them.  The  Anglo-Saxon  race  belongs  to  the 
great  German  family,  and  is  a  fair  exponent  of  its 
peculiarities.  The  Anglo-Saxon  carries  self-govern- 
loment  and  self-development  with  him  wherever  he 
goes.  He  has  popular  GOVERNMENT  and  popu¬ 
lar  INDUSTRY  ;  for  the  effects  of  a  generous  civil 

®  In  this  speech  Beecher  first  tried  to  win  a  hearing  by  making 
his  audience  feel  that  he  was  undaunted,  determined,  sincere,  ready 
15  in  speech,  and  by  appealing  to  the  innate  love  of  all  Englishmen 
for  fair  play.  Then,  carefully  avoiding  any  reference  to  the  great 
moral  reasons  why  Englishmen  should  have  supported  the  North, 
and  all  the  objections  to  the  course  of  the  North  that  must  bring 
exciting  debate,  he  sought  some  interest  of  his  audience  to  which 
20  he  could  appeal  with  some  certainty  of  a  hearing.  This  he  found 
in  the  pocket-books  of  the  manufacturers  and  the  men  employed 
by  them.  Knowing  that  the  men,  at  least,  believed  that  the  South 
gave  them  a  market  for  their  goods,  he  devoted  himself  to  showing 
that  a  free  South  would  give  them  a  far  greater  market.  Boldly 
25  taking  for  his  central  idea  the  very  opinion  on  which  the  opposition 
to  him  most  rested,  he  disposed  of  it  before  touching  for  a  moment 
on  great  moral  reasons  for  supporting  the  North,  and  before  tak¬ 
ing  up  some  of  the  objections  to  the  course  of  the  North  that  must 
meet  him.  Wherever  he  spoke,  Beecher  selected  with  great  care 
30  the  interest  to  which  he  wished  to  appeal.  In  Manchester  he  dis¬ 
cussed  the  effect  of  slavery  on  manufacturing  interests  ;  in  Glas¬ 
gow,  where  the  blockade  runners  were  building  and  the  laboring 
classes  were  in  a  way  bribed  by  their  work  to  sympathize  with  the 
South,  he  spoke  of  the  degrading  effect  on  labor  of  the  growth  of 
slavery  ;  in  Edinburgh,  a  literary  center,  he  spoke  of  the  philoso^ 
phy,  the  history  of  slavery. 


l6o  HENRY  WARD  BEECHER. 

liberty  are  not  seen  a  whit  more  plain  in  the  good 
order,  in  the  intelligence,  and  in  the  virtue  of  a  self- 
governing  people,  than  in  their  amazing  enterprise 
and  the  scope  and  power  of  their  creative  industry. 
The  power  to  create  riches  is  just  as  much  a  part  of  5 
the  Anglo-Saxon  virtues  as  the  power  to  create  good 
order  and  social  safety.  The  things  required  for 
prosperous  labor,  prosperous  manufactures,  and 
prosperous  commerce  are  three.  First,  liberty ;  sec-^ 
ond,  liberty  ;  third,  liberty.  [Hear,  hear  !]  Though  10 
these  are  not  merely  the  same  liberty,  as  I  shall  show 
you.  First,  there  must  be  liberty  to  follow  those  laws 
of  business  which  experience  has  developed,  without 
imposts  or  restrictions  or  governmental  intrusions. 
Business  simply  wants  to  be  let  alone.  [Hear,  15 
hear  !]  Then,  secondly,  there  must  be  liberty  to 
distribute .  and  exchange  products  of  industry  in 
any  market  without  burdensome  tariffs,  without  im¬ 
posts,  and  without  vexatious  regulations.  There  must 
be  these  two  liberties — liberty  to  create  wealth,  as  the  20 
makers  of  it  think  best,  according  to  the  light  and  ex¬ 
perience  which  business  has  given  them  ;  and  then 
liberty  to  distribute  what  they  have  created  without 
unnecessary  vexatious  burdens.  The  comprehensive 
law  of  the  ideal  industrial  condition  of  the  world  is  05 
free  manufacture  and  free  trade.  [Hear,  hear!  A 
voice  :  “  The  Morrill  tariff.”  Another  voice  :  “  Mon¬ 
roe.”]  I  have  said  there  were  three  elements  of 
liberty.  The  third  is  the  necessity  of  an  intelligent 
and  free  race  of  customers.  There  must  be  freedom  30 
among  producers  ;  there  must  be  freedom  among  the 
distributors  ;  there  must  be  freedom  among  the  cus- 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH.  i6i 

tomers.  It  may  not  have  occurred  to  you  that  it 
makes  any  difference  what  one’s  customers  are,  but  it 
does  in  all  regular  and  prolonged  business.  The 
condition  of  the  customer  determines  how  much  he 
5  will  buy,  determines  of  what  sort  he  will  buy.  Poor 
and  ignorant  people  buy  little  and  that  of  the  poorest 
kind.  The  richest  and  the  intelligent,  having  the 
more  means  to  buy,  buy  the  most,  and  always  buy  the 
best.  Here,  then,  are  the  three  liberties  :  liberty  of 
10  the  producer,  liberty  of  the  distributor,  and  liberty  of 
the  consumer.  The  first  two  need  no  discussion  ; 
they  have  been  long  thoroughly  and  brilliantly  illus¬ 
trated  by  the  political  economists  of  Great  Britain 
and  by  her  eminent  statesmen  ;  but  it  seems  to  me 
15  that  enough  attention  has  not  been  directed  to  the 
third  ;  and,  with  your  patience,  I  will  dwell  upon  that 
for  a  moment,  before  proceeding  to  other  topics. 

It  is  a  necessity  of  every  manufacturing  and  com¬ 
mercial  people  that  their  customers  should  be  very 
20  wealthy  and  intelligent.  Let  us  put  the  subject  before 
you  in  the  familiar  light  of  your  own  local  experience. 
To  whom  do  the  tradesmen  of  Liverpool  sell  the  most 
goods  at  the  highest  profit?  To  the  ignorant  and 
poor,  or  to  the  educated  and  prosperous?  [A  voice  : 
25 ‘‘To  the  Southerners.”  Laughter.]  The  poor  man 
buys  simply  for  his  body  ;  he  buys  food,  he  buys 
clothing,  he  buys  fuel,  he  buys  lodging.  His  rule  is 
to  buy  the  least  and  the  cheapest  that  he  can.  He 
goes  to  the  store  as  seldom  as  he  can  ;  he  brings  away 
30  as  little  as  he  can  ;  and  he  buys  for  the  least  he  can. 
[Much  laughter.]  Poverty  is  not  a  misfortune  to  the 
poor  only  who  suffer  it,  but  it  is  more  or  less  a  mis- 


i62 


HENRY  WARD  BEECHER. 


fortune  to  all  with  whom  he  deals.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  man  well  off — how  is  it  with  him?  He  buys  in  far 
greater  quantity.  He  can  afford  to  do  it ;  he  has  the 
money  to  pay  for  it.  He  buys  in  far  greater  variety, 
because  he  seeks  to  gratify  not  merely  physical  wants,  5 
but  also  mental  wants.  He  buys  for  the  satisfaction 
of  sentiment  and  taste,  as  well  as  of  sense.  He  buys 
silk,  wool,  flax,  cotton  ;  he  buys  all  metals — iron,  sil¬ 
ver,  gold,  platinum  ;  in  short  he  buys  for  all  necessities, 
and  all  substances.  But  that  is  not  all.  He  buys  a  10 
better  quality  of  goods.  He  buys  richer  silks,  finer 
cottons,  higher  grained  wools.  Now  a  rich  silk  means 
so  much  skill  and  care  of  somebody’s  that  has  been 
expended  upon  it  to  make  it  finer  and  richer ;  and  so 
of  cotton  and  so  of  wool.  That  is,  the  price  of  the  15 
finer  goods  runs  back  to  the  very  beginning,  and  re¬ 
munerates  the  workman  as  well  as  the  merchant. 
Now,  the  whole  laboring  community  is  as  much  inter¬ 
ested  and  profited  as  the  mere  merchant,  in  this  buy¬ 
ing  and  selling  of  the  higher  grades  in  the  greater  20 
varieties  and  quantities.  The  law  of  price  is  the  skill  ; 
and  the  amount  of  skill  expended  in  the  work  is  as 
much  for  the  market  as  are  the  goods.  A  man  comes 
to  market  and  says  :  I  have  a  pair  of  hands,”  and  he 
obtains  the  lowest  wages.  Another  man  comes  and  25 
says  :  I  have  something  more  than  a  pair  of  hands  ; 

I  have  truth  and  fidelity.”  He  gets  a  higher  price. 
Another  man  comes  and  says :  “  I  have  something 
more  ;  I  have  hands,  and  strength,  and  fidelity,  and 
skill.”  He  gets  more  than  either  of  the  others.  The  30 
next  man  comes  and  says  :  “  I  have  got  hands,  and 
strength,  and  skill,  and  fidelity  ;  but  my  hands  work 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH. 


163 


more  than  that.  They  know  how  to  create  things  for 
the  fancy,  for  the  affections,  for  the  moral  sentiments  ” ; 
and  he  gets  more  than  either  of  the  others.  The  last 
man  comes  and  says  :  I  have  all  these  qualities,  and 
5  have  them  so  highly  that  it  is  a  peculiar  genius  ”  ;  and 
genius  carries  the  whole  market  and  gets  the  highest 
price. [Loud  applause.]  So  that  both  the  workman 
and  the  merchant  are  profited  by  having  purchasers 
that  demand  quality,  variety,  and  quantity.  Now,  if 
10  this  be  so  in  the  town  or  the  city,  it  can  only  be  so 
because  it  is  a  law.  This  is  the  specific  development 
of  a  general  or  universal  law,  and  therefore  we  should 
expect  to  find  it  as  true  of  a  nation  as  of  a  city  like 
Liverpool.  I  know  that  it  is  so,  and  you  know  that  it 
15  is  true  of  all  the  world  ;  and  it  is  just  as  important  to 
have  customers  educated,  intelligent,  moral,  and  rich 
out  of  Liverpool  as  it  is  in  Liverpool.  [Applause.] 
They  are  able  to  buy  ;  they  want  variety,  they  want 
the  very  best ;  and  those  are  the  customers  you  want. 
20  That  nation  is  the  best  customer  that  is  freest,  because 
freedom  works  prosperity,  industry,  and  wealth. 
Great  Britain,  then,  aside  from  moral  considerations, 
has  a  direct  commercial  and  pecuniary  interest  in  the 
liberty,  civilization,  and  wealth  of  every  nation  on  the 
25  globe.  [Loud  applause.]  You  also  have  an  interest 
in  this,  because  you  are  a  moral  and  religious  people. 
[‘^  Oh,  oh  !”  Laughter  and  applause.]  You  desire  it 
from  the  highest  motives ;  and  godliness  is  profitable 
in  all  things,  having  the  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is, 
30  as  well  as  of  that  which  is  to  come  ;  but  if  there  were 

Note  here  the  force  and  the  clearness  gained  by  specific  illus¬ 
tration  of  the  general  statement  “  The  law  of  price  is  the  skill,”  etc. 


164 


HENRY  WARD  BEECHER. 


no  hereafter,  and  if  man  had  no  progress  in  this  life, 
and  if  there  were  no  question  of  civilization  at  all,  it 
would  be  worth  your  while  to  protect  civilization  and 
liberty,  merely  as  a  commercial  speculation.  To 
evangelize  has  more  than  a  moral  and  religious  im-  5 
port — it  comes  back  to  temporal  relations.  Wherever 
a  nation  that  is  crushed,  cramped,  degraded  under 
despotism  is  struggling  to  be  free,  you — Leeds,  Shef¬ 
field,  Manchester,  Paisley — all  have  an  interest  that  that 
nation  should  be  free.  When  depressed  and  back- 10 
ward  people  demand  that  they  may  have  a  chance  to 
rise — Hungary,  Italy,  Poland — it  is  a  duty  for  human¬ 
ity’s  sake,  it  is  a  duty  for  the  highest  moral  motives,  to 
sympathize  with  them  ;  but  besides  all  these  there  is  a 
material  and  an  interested  reason  why  you  should  15 
sympathize  with  them.  Pounds  and  pence  join  with 
conscience  and  with  honor  in  this  design.  Now,  Great 
Britain’s  chief  want  is — what? 

They  have  said  that  your  chief  want  is  cotton.  I 
deny  it.  Your  chief  want  is  consumers.  [Applause  20 
and  hisses.]  You  have  got  skill,  you  have  got  capital, 
and  you  have  got  machinery  enough  to  manufacture 
goods  for  the  whole  population  of  the  globe.  You  could 
turn  out  fourfold  as  much  as  you  do,  if  you  only  had 
the  market  to  sell  in.  It  is  not  so  much  the  want,  25 
therefore,  of  fabric,  though  there  may  be  a  temporary 
obstruction  of  it ;  but  the  principal  and  increasing  want 
— increasing  from  year  to  year — is,  where  shall  we  find 
men  to  buy  what  we  can  manufacture  so  fast  ?  [Inter¬ 
ruption,  and  a  voice,  The  Morrill  tariff,”  and  ap  30 
plause.]  Before  the  American  war  broke  out,  your  ware¬ 
houses  were  loaded  with  goods  that  you  could  not  sell. 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH. 


[Applause  and  hisses.]  You  had  over-manufactured  ; 
what  is  the  meaning  of  over-manufacturing  but  this  : 
that  you  had  skill,  capital,  machinery,  to  create  faster 
than  you  had  customers  to  take  goods  off  your  hands  ? 

5  And  you  know  that  rich  as  Great  Britain  is,  vast  as 
are  her  manufactures,  if  she  could  have  fourfold  the 
present  demand,  she  could  make  fourfold  riches  to¬ 
morrow  ;  and  every  political  economist  will  tell  you 
that  your  want  is  not  cotton  primarily,  but  customers, 
lo  Therefore,  the  doctrine,  how  to  make  customers,  is 
a  great  deal  more  important  to  Great  Britain  than  the 
doctrine  how  to  raise  cotton.  It  is  to  that  doctrine  I 
ask  from  you,  business  men,  practical  men,  men  of 
fact,  sagacious  Englishmen — to  that  point  I  ask  a 
15  moment’s  attention.  [Shouts  of  “  Oh,  oh  !  ”  hisses, 
and  applause.]  There  are  no  more  continents  to  be 
discovered.  [Hear,  hear  !]  The  market  of  the  future 
must  be  found — how  ?  There  is  very  little  hope  of 
any  more  demand  being  created  by  new  fields.  If 
20  you  are  to  have  a  better  market  there  must  be  some 
kind  of  process  invented  to  make  the  old  fields  better. 
[A  voice,  “Tell  us  something  new,”  shouts  of  “Order,” 
and  interruption.]  Let  us  look  at  it,  then.  You 
must  civilize  the  world  in  order  to  make  a  better 
25  class  of  purchasers.  [Interruption.]  If  you  were  lo 
press  Italy  down  again  under  the  feet  of  despotism, 
Italy,  discouraged,  could  draw  but  very  few  supplies 
from  you.  But  give  her  liberty,  kindle  schools 
throughout  her  valleys,  spur  her  industry,  make 
30  treaties  with  her  by  which  she  can  exchange  her  wine, 
and  her  oil,  and  her  silk  for  your  manufactured  goods  ; 
and  for  every  effort  that  you  make  in  that  direction 


1 66  HENRY  WARD  BEECHER, 

there  will  come  back  profit  to  you  by  increased  traffic 
with  her.  [Loud  applause.]  If  Hungary  asks  to  be 
an  unshackled  nation — if  by  freedom  she  will  rise  in 
virtue  and  intelligence,  then  by  freedom  she  will 
acquire  a  more  multifarious  industry,  which  she  will  5 
be  willing  to  exchange  for  your  manufactures.  Her 
liberty  is  to  be  found — where  ?  You  will  find  it  in  the 
Word  of  God,  you  will  find  it  in  the  code  of  history ; 
but  you  will  also  find  it  in  the  Price  Current  [Hear, 
hear  !J  ;  and  every  free  nation,  every  civilized  10 
people — every  people  that  rises  from  barbarism  to 
industry  and  intelligence,  becomes  a  better  customer. 

A  savage  is  a  man  of  one  story,  and  that  one  story 
a  cellar.  When  a  man  begins  to  be  civilized  he  raises 
another  story.  AVhen  you  Christianize  and  civilize  15 
the  man,  you  put  story  upon  story,  for  you  develop 
faculty  after^faculty  ;  and  you  have  to  supply  every 
story  with  your  productions.  The  savage  is  a  man 
one  story  deep  ;  the  civilized  man  is  thirty  stories 
deep.  [Applause.]  Now,  if  you  go  to  a  lodging- 20 
house,  where  there  are  three  or  four  men,  your  sales 
to  them  may,  no  doubt,  be  worth  something  ;  but  if 
you  go  to  a  lodging-house  like  some  of  those  which  I 
saw  in  Edinburgh,  which  seemed  to  contain  about 
twenty  stories  [‘‘Oh,  oh!”  and  interruption],  every  25 
story  of  which  is  full,  and  all  who  occupy  buy  of  you — 
which  is  the  better  customer,  the  man  who  is  drawn 
out,  or  the  man  who  is  pinched  up?  [Laughter.] 
Now,  there  is  in  this  a  great  and  sound  principle  of 
economy.  [“Yah,  yah!”  from  the  passage  outside  3c 
the  hall,  and  loud  laughter.]  If  the  South  should  be 
rendered  independent — [at  this  juncture  mingled 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH. 


167 


cheering  and  hissing  became  immense  ;  half  the 
audience  rose  to  their  feet,  waving  hats  and  handker¬ 
chiefs,  and  in  every  part  of  the  hall  there  was  the 
greatest  commotion  and  uproar.]  You  have  had  your 
5  turn  now  ;  now  let  me  have  mine  again.  [Loud  ap¬ 
plause  and  laughter.]  It  is  a  little  inconvenient  to 
talk  against  the  wind  ;  but  after  all,  if  you  will  just 
keep  good-natured — I  am  not  going  to  lose  my  tem¬ 
per  ;  will  you  watch  yours  ?  [Applause.]  Besides 
10  all  that,  it  rests  me,  and  gives  me  a  chance,  you  know, 
to  get  my  breath.  [Applause  and  hisses.]  And  I 
think  that  the  bark  of  those  men  is  worse  than  their 
bite.  They  do  not  mean  any  harm — they  don’t  know 
any  better.  [Loud  laughter,  applause,  hisses,  and 
15  continued  uproar.]  I  was  saying,  when  these  responses 
broke  in,  that  it  was  worth  our  while  to  consider  both 
alternatives.  What  will  be  the  result  if  this  present 
struggle  shall  eventuate  in  the  separation  of  America, 
and  making  the  South — [loud  applause,  hisses,  hoot- 
20  ing,  and  cries  of  ‘‘Bravo  !  ”] — a  slave  territory  exclu¬ 
sively —  [cries  of  “  No,  no  !  ”  and  laughter] — and  the 
North  a  free  territory, — what  will  be  the  final  result? 
You  will  lay  the  foundation  for  carrying  the  slave 
population  clear  through  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  This 
25  is  the  first  step.  There  is  not  a  man  that  has  been  a 
leader  of  the  South  any  time  within  these  twenty 
years  that  has  not  had  this  for  a  plan.  It  was  for 
this  that  Texas  was  invaded,  first  by  colonists,  next 
by  marauders,  until  it  was  wrested  from  Mexico.  It 
30  was  for  this  that  they  engaged  in  the  Mexican  War 
itself,  by  which  the  vast  territory  reaching  to  the 
Pacific  was  added  to  the  Union.  Never  for  a  moment 


i68 


HENRY  WARD  BEECHER, 


have  they  given  up  the  plan  of  spreading  the  American 
institutions,  as  they  call  them,  straight  through  toward 
the  West,  until  the  slave,  who  has  washed  his  feet  in 
the  A_tlantic,  shall  be  carried  to  wash  them  in  the 
Pacific.  [Cries  of  Question,’’  and  uproar.]  There  !  5 
I  have  got  that  statement  out,  and  you  cannot  put  it 
back.  [Laughter  and  applause.]  Now,  let  us  con¬ 
sider  the  prospect.  If  the  South  becomes  a  slave 
empire,  what  relation  will  it  have  to  you  as  a  customer  } 
[A  voice:  “Or  any  other  man.”  Laughter.]  It  lo 
would  be  an  empire  of  twelve  millions  of  people. 
Now,  of  these,  eight  millions  are  white,  and  four  mil¬ 
lions  black.  [A  voice  :  “  How  many  have  you  got  ?” 
Applause  and  laughter.  Another  voice  :  “  Free  your 
own  slaves  !  ”]  Consider  that  one-third  of  the  whole  15 
are  the  miserably  poor,  unbuying  blacks.  [Cries  of 
“  No,  no  !  ”  “  Yes,  yes  !  ”  and  interruption.]  You  do 
not  manufacture  much  for  them.  [Hisses,  “  Oh  !  ” 

“  No.”]  You  have  not  got  machinery  coarse  enough. 
[Laughter,  and  “No.”]  Your  labor  is  too  skilled  by  20 
far  to  manufacture  bagging  and  linsey-woolsey.  [A 
Southerner  :  “  We  are  going  to  free  them,  every  one.”] 
Then  you  and  I  agree  exactly.  [Laughter.]  One 
other  third  consists  of  a  poor,  unskilled,  degraded 
white  population  ;  and  the  remaining  one-third,  which  25 
is  a  large  allowance,  we  will  say,  intelligent  and  rich. 

Now  here  are  twelve  million  of  people,  and  only 
one-third  of  them  are  customers  that  can  afford  to  buy 
the  kind  of  goods  that  you  bring  to  market.  [Inter¬ 
ruption  and  uproar.]  My  friends,  I  saw  a  man  once,  30 
who  was  a  little  late  at  a  railway -station,  chase  an 
express  train.  He  did  not  catch  it.  [Laughter.]  If 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH, 


169 


you  are  going  to  stop  this  meeting,  you  have  got  to 
stop  it  before  I  speak  ;  for  after  I  have  got  the  things 
out,  you  may  chase  as  long  as  you  please — you  would 
not  catch  them.  [Laughter  and  interruption.]  But 
5  there  is  luck  in  leisure  ;  I’m  going  to  take  it  easy. 
[Laughter.]  Two-thirds  of  the  population  of  the 
Southern  States  to-day  are  non-purchasers  of  English 
goods.  [A  voice  :  “  No,  they  are  not  ;  ”  No,  no  !  ” 
and  uproar.]  Now  you  must  recollect  another  fact — 
10  namely,  that  this  is  going  on  clear  through  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean  ;  and  if  by  sympathy  or  help  you  estab¬ 
lish  a  slave  empire,  you  sagacious  Britons — [‘‘  Oh, 
oh  !  ”  and  hooting] — if  you  like  it  better,  then,  I  will 
leave  the  adjective  out — [laughter.  Hear  !  and  ap- 
15  plause] — are  busy  in  favoring  the  establishment  of  an 
empire  from  ocean  to  ocean  that  should  have  fewest 
customers  and  the  largest  non-buying  population. 
[Applause,  No,  no  !  ”  A  voice  :  I  thought  it  was 
the  happy  people  that  populated  fastest.”] 

20  Now,  what  can  England  make  for  the  poor  white 
population  of  such  a  future  empire,  and  for  her  slave 
population  ?  What  carpets,  what  linens,  what  cottons 
can  you  sell  them?  What  machines,  what  looking- 
glasses,  what  combs,  what  leather,  what  books,  what 
25  pictures,  what  engravings?  [A  voice:  ‘‘We’ll  sell 
them  ships.”]  You  may  sell  ships  to  a  few,  but  what 
ships  can  you  sell  to  two-thirds  of  the  population  of 
poor  whites  and  blacks  ?  [Applause.]  A  little  bag¬ 
ging  and  a  little  linsey-woolsey,  a  few  whips  and 
30  manacles,  are  all  that  you  can  sell  for  the  slave. 
[Great  applause  and  uproar.]  This  very  day,  in  the 
slave  States  of  America  there  are  eight  millions  out  of 


1/0  HEMRY  WARD  BEECHER. 

twelve  millions  that  are  not,  and  cannot  be  your  custo¬ 
mers  from  the  very  laws  of  trade.  [A  voice  :  Then 
how  are  they  clothed  ?  "  and  interruption.].  .  . 

But  I  know  that  you  say,  you  cannot  help  sympa¬ 
thizing  with  a  gallant  people.  [Hear,  hear !]  They  5 
are  the  weaker  people,  the  minority  ;  and  you  cannot 
help  going  with  the  minority  who  are  struggling  for 
their  rights  against  the  majority.  Nothing  could  be 
more  generous,  when  a  weak  party  stands  for  its  own 
legitimate  rights  against  imperious  pride  and  power,  lo 
than  to  sympathize  with  the  weak.  But  who  ever 
sympathized  with  a  weak  thief,  because  three  con¬ 
stables  had  got  hold  of  him  ?  [Hear,  hear  !]  And 
yet  the  one  thief  in  three  policemen’s  hands  is  the 
weaker  party.  I  suppose  you  would  sympathize  with  15 
him.  [Hear,  hear!  laughter,  and  applause.]  Why, 
when  that  infamous  king  of  Naples — Bomba,  was 
driven  into  Gaeta  by  Garibaldi  with  his  immortal 
band  of  patriots,  and  Cavour  sent  against  him  the 
army  of  Northern  Italy,  who  was  the  weaker  party  20 
then  ?  The  tyrant  and  his  minions  ;  and  the  majority 
was  with  the  noble  Italian  patriots,  struggling  for 
liberty.  I  never  heard  that  Old  England  sent  deputa¬ 
tions  to  King  Bomba,  and  yet  his  troops  resisted 
bravely  there.  [Laughter  and  interruption.]  To-day  25 
the  majority  of  the  people  of  Rome  is  with  Italy. 
Nothing  but  French  bayonets  keeps  her  from  going 
back  to  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  to  which  she  belongs. 
Do  you  sympathize  with  the  minority  in  Rome  or 
the  majority  in  Italy  [A  voice:  ‘‘With  Italy.”]  30 

^  Here  Beecher,  knowing  that  sympathy  in  England  for  the 
Italian  struggle  for  independence  was  strong,  made  a  rediictio 


LiyERPOOL  SPEECH.  i?! 

To-day  the  South  is  the  minority  in  America,  and  they 
are  fighting  for  independence!  For  what?  [Uproar. 
A  voice  :  “  Three  cheers  for  independence  !  and 
hisses.]  I  could  wish  so  much  bravery  had  a  better 
5  cause,  and  that  so  much  self-denial  had  been  less 
deluded  ;  that  the  poisonous  and  venomous  doctrine 
of  State  rights  might  have  been  kept  aloof  ;  that  so 
many  gallant  spirits,  such  as  Jackson,  might  still  have 
lived.  [Great  applause  and  loud  cheers,  again  and 
10  again  renewed.]  The  force  of  these  facts,  historical 
and  incontrovertible,  cannot  be  broken,  except  by 
diverting  attention  by  an  attack  upon  the  North.  It 
is  said  that  the  North  is  fighting  for  Union,  and  not 
for  emancipation.  The  North  is  fighting  for  Union, 
15  for  that  ensures  emancipation.  [Loud  cheers,  ‘‘  Oh, 
oh  !  No,  no  !  and  cheers.]  A  great  many  men 
say  to  ministers  of  the  Gospel  :  You  pretend  to  be 
preaching  and  working  for  the  love  of  the  people. 
Why,  you  are  all  the  time  preaching  for  the  sake  of 
20 the  Church.”  What  does  the  minister  say?  ‘‘It  is 
by  means  of  the  Church  that  we  help  the  people,” 
and  when  men  say  that  we  are  fighting  for  the  Union, 
I  too  say  we  are  fighting  for  the  U nion.  [Hear,  hear  ! 
and  a  voice  :  “  That's  right.”]  But  the  motive  deter- 
25  mines  the  value  ;  and  why  are  we  fighting  for  the 
Union  ?  Because  we  never  shall  forget  the  testimony 
of  our  enemies.  They  have  gone  off  declaring  that  the 
Union  in  the  hands  of  the  North  was  fatal  to  slavery. 
[Loud  applause.]  There  is  testimony  in  court  for 
30  you.  [A  voice  :  “  See  that,”  and  laughter.]  .  .  . 

ad  absurdum  of  the  principle  of  his  opponents  by  an  illustration 
of  which  he  could  speak  without  fear  of  hostile  interruption. 


172 


HEMRY  WARD  BEECHER, 


In  the  first  place  I  am  ashamed  to  confess  that  such 
was  the  thoughtlessness — [interruption] — such  was 
the  stupor  of  the  North — [renewed  interruption] — 
you  will  get  a  word  at  a  time  ;  to-morrow  will  let 
folks  see  what  it  is  you  don’t  want  to  hear — that  for  5 
a  period  of  twenty-five  years  she  went  to  sleep,  and 
permitted  herself  to  be  drugged  and  poisoned  with 
the  Southern  prejudice  against  black  men.  [Applause 
and  uproar.]  The  evil  was  made  worse,  because, 
when  any  object  whatever  has  caused  anger  between  10 
political  parties,  a  political  animosity  arises  against 
that  object,  no  matter  how  innocent  in  itself  ;  no 
matter  what  were  the  original  influences  which  ex¬ 
cited  the  quarrel.  Thus  the  colored  man  has  been 
the  football  between  the  two  parties  in  the  North,  15 
and  has  suffered  accordingly.  I  confess  it  to  my 
shame.  But  I  am  speaking  now  on  my  own  ground, 
for  I  began  twenty-five  years  ago,  with  a  small  party, 
to  combat  the  unjust  dislike  of  the  colored  man. 
[Loud  applause,  dissension,  and  uproar.  The  inter-  20 
ruption  at  this  point  became  so  violent  that  the  friends 
of  Mr.  Beecher  throughout  the  hall  rose  to  their  feet, 
waving  hats  and  handkerchiefs,  and  renewing  their 
shouts  and  applause.  The  interruption  lasted  some 
minutes.]  Well,  I  have  lived  to  see  a  total  revolution  25 
in  the  Northern  feeling — I  stand  here  to  bear  solemn 
witness  of  that.  It  is  not  my  opinion  ;  it  is  my  knowl¬ 
edge.  [Great  uproar.]  Those  men  who  undertook 
to  stand  up  for  the  rights  of  all  men — black  as  well 
as  white — have  increased  in  number  ;  and  now  what  30 
party  in  the  North  represents  those  men  that  resist 
the  evil  prejudices  of  past  years  ?  The  Republicans 


L/VERPOOL  SPEECH. 


173 


are  that  party.  [Loud  applause.]  And  who  are 
those  men  in  the  North  that  have  oppressed  the 
negro?  They  are  the  Peace  Democrats  ;  and  the  prej¬ 
udice  for  which  in  England  you  are  attempting  to  picn- 
5  ish  w,  is  a  prejudice  raised  by  the  men  who  have  opposed 
me  all  my  life.  These  pro-slavery  Democrats  abuse 
the  negro.  I  defended  him,  and  they  mobbed  me  for 
doing  it.  Oh,  justice !  [Loud  laughter,  applause, 
and  hisses.]  This  is  as  if  a  man  should  commit  an 
10  assault,  maim  and  wound  a  neighbor,  and  a  surgeon 
being  called  in  should  begin  to  dress  his  wounds,  and 
by  and  by  a  policeman  should  come  and  collar  the 
surgeon  and  haul  him  off  to  prison  on  account  of 
the  wounds  which  he  was  healing. 

15  Now,  I  told  you  I  would  not  flinch  from  anything. 
I  am  going  to  read  you  some  questions  that  were  sent 
after  me  from  Glasgow,  purporting  to  be  from  a  work¬ 
ingman.  [Great  interruption.]  If  those  pro-slavery 
interrupters  think  they  will  tire  me  out,  they  will  do 
20  more  than  eight  millions  in  America  could.  [Applause 
and  renewed  interruption.]  I  was  reading  a  question 
on  your  side  too.  “  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  in  most  of 
the  Northern  States  laws  exist  precluding  negroes 
from  equal  civil  and  political  rights  with  the  whites? 
25  That  in  the  State  of  New  York  the  negro  has  to  be 
the  possessor  of  at  least  $250  worth  of  property  to 
entitle  him  to  the  privileges  of  a  white  citizen?  That 
in  some  of  the  Northern  States  the  colored  man, 
whether  bond  or  free,  is  by  law  excluded  altogether, 
30  and  not  suffered  to  enter  the  State  limits,  under 
severe  penalties?  and  is  not  Mr.  Lincoln’s  own  State 
one  of  them  ?  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 


i74 


HENRY  WARE  BEECHER, 


twenty  million  dollars  compensation  which  was 
promised  to  Missouri  in  aid  of  emancipation  was  de¬ 
feated  in  the  last  Congress  (the  strongest  Republican 
Congress  that  ever  assembled),  what  has  the  North 
done  toward  emancipation  ?”  Now,  then,  there's  a  5 
dose  for  you.  [A  voice  :  “  Answer  it.”]  And  I  will 
address  myself  to  the  answering  of  it.  And  first, 
the  bill  for  emancipation  in  Missouri,  to  which  this 
money  was  denied,  was  a  bill  which  was  drawn  by 
what  we  call  ‘Mog-rollers,”  who  inserted  in  it  an  10 
enormously  disproportioned  price  for  the  slaves. 
The  Republicans  offered  to  give  them  ten  million 
dollars  for  the  slaves  in  Missouri,  and  they  outvoted 
it  because  they  could  not  get  twelve  million  dollars. 
Already  half  the  slave  population  had  been  ‘‘  run  ”  15 
down  South,  and  yet  they  came  up  to  Congress  to 
get  twelve  million  dollars  for  what  was  not  worth 
ten  millions,  nor  even  eight  millions.  Now  as  to 
those  States  that  had  passed  “  black  ”  laws,  as  we 
call  them  ;  they  are  filled  with  Southern  emigrants.  20 
The  southern  parts  of  Ohio,  the  southern  part 
of  Indiana,  where  I  myself  lived  for  years,  and 
which  I  knew  like  a  book,  the  southern  part  of 
Illinois,  where  Mr.  Lincoln  lives — [great  uproar] — 
these  parts  are  largely  settled  by  emigrants  from  25 
Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Georgia,  Virginia,  and  North 
Carolina,  and  it  was  their  vote,  or  the  Northern 
votes  pandering  for  political  reasons  to  theirs, 
that  passed  in  those  States  the  infamous  “  black  ” 
laws  ;  and  '.he  Republicans  in  these  States  have  a  30 
record,  -.iCan  and  white,  as  having  opposed  these 
'aws  in  every  instance  as  “  infamous.”  Now  as  to 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH. 


the  State  of  New  York  ;  it  is  asked  whether  a  negro 
is  not  obliged  to  have  a  certain  freehold  property,  or 
a  certain  amount  of  property,  before  he  can  vote.  It 
is  so  still  in  North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island  for 
5  white  — it  is  so  in  New  York  State.  [Mr.  Beecher’s 

voice  slightly  failed  him  here,  and  he  was  interrupted 
by  a  person  who  tried  to  imitate  him.  Cries  of 
“  Shame  !  ”  and  “  Turn  him  out  !  ”]  I  am  not  under¬ 
taking  to  say  that  these  faults  of  the  North,  which 
lowere  brought  upon  them  by  the  bad  example  and 
influence  of  the  South,  are  all  cured  ;  but  I  do  say 
that  they  are  in  process  of  cure  which  promises,  if 
unimpeded  by  foreign  influence,  to  make  all  such 
odious  distinctions  vanish. 

15  There  is  another  fact  that  I  wish  to  allude  to — not 
for  the  sake  of  reproach  or  blame,  but  by  way  of 
claiming  your  more  lenient  consideration — and  that 
is,  that  slavery  was  entailed  upon  us  by  your  action.® 
[Hear,  hear  !]  Against  the  earnest  protests  of  the 
20  colonists  the  then  government  of  Great  Britain — I 
will  concede  not  knowing  what  were  the  mischiefs — 
ignorantly,  but  in  point  of  fact,  forced  slave  traffic  on 
the  unwilling  colonists.  [Great  uproar,  in  the  midst 
of  which  one  individual  was  lifted  up  and  carried  out 
25  of  the  room  amid  cheers  and  hisses.] 

The  Chairman  :  If  you  would  only  sit  down  no 
disturbance  would  take  place. 

®  The  similarity  of  this  attempt  of  Mr.  Beecher's  to  make  his 
audience  partly  responsible  for  an  evil  condition  of  affairs  in 
America  to  Lord  Chatham’s  effort,  p.  7,  to  shame  his  hearers  by 
pointing  out  the  source  of  the  spirit  of  resistance  of  the  colonists, 
should  be  noticed. 


17^  HENRY  WARD  BEECHER. 

The  disturbance  having  subsided, 

Mr.  Beecher  said  :  I  was  going  to  ask  you,  sup¬ 
pose  a  child  is  born  with  hereditary  disease  ;  suppose 
this  disease  was  entailed  upon  him  by  parents  who 
had  contracted  it  by  their  own  misconduct,  would  it  5 
be  fair  that  those  parents  that  had  brought  into  the 
world  the  diseased  child,  should  rail  at  the  child 
because  it  was  diseased  ?  [“  No,  no  !  Would  not 

the  child  have  a  right  to  turn  round  and  say  :  Father, 
it  was  your  fault  that  I  had  it,  and  you  ought  to  be  10 
pleased  to  be  patient  with  my  deficiencies.”  [Applause 
and  hisses,  and  cries  of  ‘‘  Order  !  ”  Great  interruption 
and  great  disturbance  here  took  place  on  the  right  of 
tJie  platform  ;  and  the  chairman  said  that  if  the  per¬ 
sons  around  the  unfortunate  individual  who  had  caused  15 
the  disturbance  would  allow  him  to  speak  alone,  but 
not  assist  him  in  making  the  disturbance,  it  might 
soon  be  put  an  end  to.  The  interruption  continued 
until  another  person  was  carried  out  of  the  hall.]  Mr. 
Beecher  continued  :  I  do  not  ask  that  you  should  20 
justify  slavery  in  us,  because  it  was  wrong  in  you  two 
hundred  years  ago  ;  but  having  ignorantly  been  the 
means  of  fixing  it  upon  us,  now  that  we  are  struggling 
with  mortal  .struggles  to  free  ourselves  from  it,  we 
have  a  right  to  your  tolerance,  your  patience,  and  25 
charitable  constructions. 

No  man  can  unveil  the  future  ;  no  man  can  tell 
what  revolutions  are  about  to  break  upon  the  world  ; 
no  man  can  tell  what  destiny  belongs  to  France,  nor 
to  any  of  the  European  powers  ;  but  one  thing  is 30 
certain,  that  in  the  exigencies  of  the  future  there  will 
be  combinations  and  recombinations,  and  that  those 


LIVERPOOL  SPEECH. 


177 


nations  that  are  of  the  same  faith,  the  same  blood, 
and  the  same  substantial  interests,  ought  not  to  be 
alienated  from  each  other,  but  ought  to  stand  to¬ 
gether.  [Immense  cheering  and  hisses.]  I  do  not 
5  say  that  you  ought  not  to  be  in  the  most  friendly 
alliance  with  France  or  with  Germany;  but  I  do  say 
that  your  own  children,  the  offspring  of  England,  ought 
to  be  nearer  to  you  than  any  people  of  strange  tongue. 
[A  voice  :  ‘‘  Degenerate  sons,’'  applause  and  hisses  ; 
10  another  voice  :  What  about  the  Trent  1  ”]  If  there 
had  been  any  feelings  of  bitterness  in  America,  let 
me  tell  you  that  they  had  been  excited,  rightly  or 
wrongly,  under  the  impression  that  Great  Britain  was 
•  going  to  intervene  between  us  and  our  own  lawful 
15  struggle.  [A  voice  :  “  No  !  ”  and  applause.]  With 
the  evidence  that  there  is  no  such  intention  all  bitter 
feelings  will  pass  away.  [Applause.]  We  do  not 
agree  with  the  recent  doctrine  of  neutrality  as  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  law.  But  it  is  past,  and  we  are  not  disposed 
20  to  raise  that  question.  We  accept  it  now  as  a  fact, 
and  we  say  that  the  utterance  of  Lord  Russell  at 
Blairgowrie — [Applause,  hisses,  and  a  voice  :  What 
about  Lord  Brougham  ?  ”] — together  with  the  decla¬ 
ration  of  the  government  in  stopping  war-steamers 
25  here — [Great  uproar,  and  applause] — has  gone  far 
toward  quieting  every  fear  and  removing  every  appre¬ 
hension  from  our  minds.  [Uproar  and  shouts  of 
applause.]  And  now  in  the  future  it  is  the  work  of 
every  good  man  and  patriot  not  to  create  divisions, 
30  but  to  do  the  things  that  will  make  for  peace.  [“  Oh, 
oh  !  ”  and  laughter.]  On  our  part  it  shall  be  done. 
[Applause  and  hisses,  and  No,  no  !  ”]  On  your 


17^  HENRY  WARD  BEECHER, 

part  it  ought  to  be  done  ;  and  when  in  any  of  the 
convulsions  that  come  upon  the  world,  Great  Britain 
finds  herself  struggling  single-handed  against  the  gi¬ 
gantic  powers  that  spread  oppression  and  darkness 
— [Applause,  hisses,  and  uproar] — there  ought  to  5 
be  such  cordiality  that  she  can  turn  and  say  to  her 
first-born  and  most  illustrious  child,  “  Come  !  ” 
[Hear,  hear  !  applause,  tremendous  cheers,  and  up¬ 
roar.]  I  will  not  say  that  England  cannot  again,  as 
hitherto,  single-handed  manage  any  power — [applause  10 
and  uproar] — but  I  will  say  that  England  and  America 
together  for  religion  and  liberty — [A  voice  :  “  Soap, 
soap,*’  uproar,  and  great  applause] — are  a  match  for 
the  world.  [Applause  ;  a  voice  :  They  don’t  want 
any  more  soft  soap.”]  Now,  gentlemen  and  ladies — 15 
[A  voice  :  Sam  Slick  ”  ;  and  another  voice  ;  “  Ladies 
and  gentlemen,  if  you  please  ”] — when  I  came  I  was 
asked  whether  I  would  answer  questions,  and  I  very 
readily  consented  to  do  so,  as  I  had  in  other  places  ; 
but  I  will  tell  you  it  was  because  I  expected  to  have  20 
the  opportunity  of  speaking  with  some  sort  of  ease 
and  quiet.  [A  voice  :  “  So  you  have.”]  I  have  for 
an  hour  and  a  half  spoken  against  a  storm — [Hear, 
hear  !] — and  you  yourselves  are  witnesses  that,  by 
the  interruption,  I  have  been  obliged  to  strive  with  25 
my  voice,  so  that  I  no  longer  have  the  power  to  con¬ 
trol  this  assembly.  [Applause.]  And  although  I  am 
in  spirit  perfectly  willing  to  answer  any  question,  and 
more  than  glad  of  the  chance,  yet  I  am  by  this  very 
unnecessary  opposition  to-night  incapacitated  physi-30 
cally  from  doing  it.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  bid 
you  good-evening. 


JEngUsb  IReabings  for  Stubents. 


This  collection  is  planned  to  supply  English  master¬ 
pieces  in  editions  at  once  competently  edited  and  inex¬ 
pensive.  The  aim  will  be  to  fill  vacancies  now  existing 
because  of  subject,  treatment,  or  price.  The  volumes 
will  be  of  convenient  size  and  serviceably  bound. 

Coleridge :  Prose  Extracts. 

Selections  chosen  and  edited  with  introduction  and  notes  by  HenrV 

A.  Beers,  Professor  in  Yale  College,  xxix  +  148  pp.  i6mo. 

Boards.  Teachers’  price,  30  cents  ;  postage  4  cents  additional. 

The  selections,  varying  in  length  from  a  paragraph  to 
ten  or  twenty  pages,  will  be  mainly  from  Table  Talk  and 
Biographia  Literaria^  but  also  in  part  from  The  Friend^ 
Notes  on  Shakspeare^  and  other  writings.  They  have 
been  chosen,  so  far  as  may  be,  to  illustrate  the  range  and 
variety  of  Coleridge’s  thought,  and,  to  emphasize  this 
purpose,  have  been  grouped  by  subjects.  The  introduc¬ 
tion  briefly  summarizes  the  author’s  intellectual  position 
and  influence. 

De  Quincey :  Joan  of  Arc  and  The  English  Mail 
Coach. 

Edited  with  an  introduction  and  notes  by  James  Morgan  Hart, 

Professor  in  Cornell  University,  xxvi  -f- 138  pp.  i6mo.  Boards. 

Teachers’  price,  30  cents  ;  postage  4  cents  additional. 

These  essays  have  been  chosen  as  fairly  representative 
of  the  two  most  notable  phases  of  the  author’s  work,  and 
as  at  the  same  time  attractive  to  the  novice  in  literary 
study.  The  introduction  sketches  the  leading  facts  of 
De  Quincey’s  life,  and  indicates  some  of  the  prominent 


1 


2 


English  fadings  for  Snidents. 


features  of  his  style.  Allusions  and  other  points  of  un¬ 
usual  difficulty  are  explained  in  the  notes.  This  volume 
and  the  one  containing  the  Essays  on  BosweWs  Joh7iso?i 
(see  below)  are  used  at  Cornell  University  as  foundation 
for  elementary  rhetorical  study. 

Dryden :  Select  Plays. 

Edited  with  a  brief  introduction  and  notes  by  James  W.  Bright, 
Assistant  Professor  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  About  loo 
pp.  i6mo.  \In  preparation.^ 

Aside  from  their  representing  the  principal  literary  ac¬ 
tivity,  in  point  of  quantity,  of  one  of  the  foremost  English 
writers,  Dryden's  plays  have  a  peculiar*  interest  in  having 
been  among  the  first  to  be  played  upon  the  reopening  of 
the  theatres  under  Charles  II. 

Goldsmith  :  Present  State  of  Polite  Learning. 

Edited  with  introduction  and  notes  by  J.  M.  Hart,  Professor  in 
Cornell  University.  About  loo  pp.  i6mo.  \In  preparation.^ 

There  are  many  reasons,  some  of  them  obvious,  for 
giving  this  essay  a  place  in  the  English  Readings  series. 
One  that  may  be  mentioned  is  the  remarkably  clear 
insight  it  affords  into  the  entire  eighteenth-century  way 
of  criticising.  The  introduction  and  notes  will  direct 
the  student’s  attention  along  this  line  of  observation. 

Lyly :  Endimion. 

With  introduction  and  notes  by  George  P.  Baker,  Instructor  in 
Harvard  College.  i6mo,  pp.  cxcvi -|- 109. 

Lyly’s  plays  really  show  him  to  a  better  advantage  than 
does  the  Euphues^  by  which  he  is  chiefly  remembered, 
and  his  place  in  English  dramatic  history  makes  it  de¬ 
sirable  that  one  at  least  should  be  easily  accessible. 


English  Readings  for  Students. 


3 


Macaulay  and  Carlyle  :  Essays  on  Samuel 
Johnson. 

The  complete  essays,  with  introduction  and  notes  by  William 
Strunk,  Jr.,  Instructor  in  English  in  Cornell  University.  xl-fi9i 
pp.  i6mo.  Boards. 

These  parallel  treatments  of  Croker’s  editing,  and  of 
the  characters  of  Boswell  and  Dr.  Johnson,  afford  an 
unusual  opportunity  for  comparative  study.  The  two 
essays  present  a  constant  contrast  in  intellectual  and 
moral  methods  of  criticism  which  cannot  fail  to  turn  the 
attention  of  students  to  important  principles  of  biographi¬ 
cal  writing,  while  equally  important  principles  of  diction 
are  impressively  illustrated  in  the  two  strongly  marked 
styles.  The  essays  also  offer  an  excellent  introduction 
to  the  study  of  the  literary  history  of  Johnson’s  times. 

Marlowe  :  Edward  II.  With  the  best  passages  from 
Tamburlaine  the  Great,  and  from  his  Poems. 

With  brief  notes  and  an  introductory  essay  by  Edward  T.  Mc¬ 
Laughlin,  Professor  in  Yale  College. 

Aside  from  the  intrinsic  value  of  Edward  //.,  as  Mar¬ 
lowe’s  most  important  work,  the  play  is  of  great  interest 
in  connection  with  Shakespere.  The  earlier  chronicle 
drama  was  in  Shakespere’s  memory  as  he  was  writing 
Richard  //.,  as  various  passages  prove,  and  a  comparison 
of  the  two  plays  (sketched  in  the  introduodon)  affords 
basis  for  a  study  in  the  development  of  the  ^^izabethan 
drama.  Since  Tamburlaine  has  really  no  plot  and 
character-development,  extracts  that  illustrate  its  poeti¬ 
cal  quality  lose  nothing  for  lack  of  a  context.  The 
unobjectionable  beginning  of  Hero  and  Leander  is  per¬ 
haps  the  finest  narrative  verse  of  the  sixteenth  century. 


4 


English  Tradings  for  Students 


Specimens  of  Argumentation.  I.  Classic. 

Chosen  and  edited  by  George  P.  Baker,  Instructor  in  Enj^lish 
in  Harvard  College,  and  Non-resident  Lecturer  on  Argumentative 
Composition  in  Wellesley  College.  [/;/  preparatio7i.'\ 

Specimens  of  Argumentation.  II.  Modern. 

Chosen  and  edited  by  George  P.  Baker.  i6mo.  i86  pp. 
Boards. 

This  compilation  includes  Lord  Chatham’s  speech  on 
the  withdrawal  of  troops  from  Boston,  Lord  Mansfield  s 
argument  in  the  Evans  case,  the  first  letter  of  Junius, 
the  first  of  Huxley’s  American  addresses  on  evolution, 
Erskine’s  defence  of  IvOrd  George  Gordon,  and  an  ad¬ 
dress  of  Beecher’s  in  Liverpool  during  the  cotton  riots, 
d'he  choice  and  editing  has  been  controlled  by  the  needs 
o:  the  courses  in  Forensics”  in  Harvard  College.  The 
earlier  selections  offer  excellent  material  for  practice  in 
drawing  briefs,  a  type  of  such  a  brief  being  given  in  the 
volume.  The  notes  aim  to  point  out  the  conditions 
under  which  each  argument  was  made,  the  difficulties  to 
be  overcome,  and  wherein  the  power  of  the  argument 
lies.  It  is  thought  that  the  collection,  as  a  whole,  will 
be  found  to  contain  available  illustrations  of  all  the  main 
principles  of  argumentation,  including  the  handling  of 
evidence,  persuasion,  and  scientific  exposition. 


HENRY  HOLT  &  CO.,  Publishers,  New  York. 


XS  ^Vq 


✓  • 

^  ■  - 


e 


j 


M 


* 


\ 

r 


.  ■ » 


•  • 


.> 


